Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 30

< 29 December	31 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nominator blocked as a sockpuppet; no other support for deletion. Merge discussions can continue on the talk pages. Fences&Windows 00:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hector Barbossa

These Pirates of the Caribbean characters do not hold any notability outside of the fictional universe as there is a lack of third party, independent and reliable sources to back the content up. Therefore, the articles are excessive plot summaries. WossOccurring (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dalejenkins. Fences&Windows 00:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect them all to the respective movies. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least Barbossa and Tia as major characters in arguably the most significant new film franchise of the decade. The others might be better served by merging, although none of them are so egregiously minor that an article is completely unacceptable. Sourcing should be no problem given the enormous amount of media coverage of the series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment fails WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, WP:IMPORTANT and WP:NOTINHERITED. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least Norrington and Barbossa, they should have plenty of external sources, I'll go look for some now. Barbossa especially since sources point to him being in a 4th. The rest should be Redirected to a Characters of PotC page. Tphi (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment fails WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:NOTINHERITED. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some or mergeinto a combination article . Inappropriate group nomination, as they are not of similar importance. I must admit I too do not know the works involved, but at least I read the main Wikipedia articles and can see that much. A combination characters article is appropriate for all important works of fiction. Combination articles have contents that must meet WP:V but need not individually meet WP:GNG--for if they did, they would be separate articles. And character ≠plot -- they are separate aspects. The "cast" sections in the individual film articles are inadequate--for a franchise like this, it's better to keep all the characters together. And at least to me, if not to some of the people at the film project, characters and cast are also separate related things, each needing discussion. Retelling major amounts of the plot for each character's position in it is usually unnecessary if they are grouped in combination articles, which is another advantage. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment fails WP:IMPORTANT. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - a totally absurd ignorant, unproductive delete suggestion. Keep all articles. More information is better. if you want to delete stuff, people are totally easy to go ignorant. Stop this nonsense. 174.16.239.106 (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 174.16.239.106 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This comment fails WP:ILIKEIT, WP:VALINFO and WP:PA. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all these articles to one, not giving undue detail to each character. Giving a separate article to each character isn't necessary. Rkr1991 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 06:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Barbossa and Norrington (they appear in every film and must have some sources). -- deerstop. 07:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment fails WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:IMPORTANT and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, especially Barbossa and Dalma. These articles contain lots of useful information, they're not just one- or two-paragraph stubs. I find the whole thing of deleting articles on notable fictional worlds quite absurd. --89.31.118.248 (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment fails WP:ITSUSEFUL WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely keep! Barbossa is a major character that is vital to the plot, for heaven's sake, and should have a separate page. It serves no purpose to deleting this and the others that are also targeted. Also keep Norrington.PNW Raven (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment fails WP:NOHARM, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:IMPORTANT. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator and future AFD !voters - The majority of the above !votes appear to be based around the fact that users like the subject issue. Please remember to comply with Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions when airing your views. WossOccurring (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, not my !vote: personally, the only pirate movie I like is Errol Flynn's Captain Blood (1935 film). While we're at it, I don;t see any other comments based on that argument either--though a few seem to be based only on its obviously important. DGG ( talk )

Comment I usually don't venture into the AFD area, but randomly ran across this one. While I agree that articles about movie characters may not be notable enough for separate articles, I would like to note that most of what WossOcurring in regards to failing WP argument guidelines could be applied to his nomination in the first place. I would vote to merge most of these entries into the list of minor characters in PotC. Clegs (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What part of my nomination fails the guidelines? WossOccurring (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Barbossa, there should be material in the 2000+ Google News hits to make a decent verifiable article.[1] e.g. these articles about Rush's role:[2][3][4][5][6]. As the nominator obviously didn't bother looking for sources for this one (WP:BEFORE) I have no faith that they checked for sources for the others, so keep or merge the rest. Fences&Windows 21:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Norrington and Barbossa, and merge and redirect the rest into List of Pirates of the Carribean characters. There are several lists of non-notable-enough characters like this, and it is a valid middle ground. And before you tag me, I am aware that my comment may fail WP:OTHERCRAP. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 21:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Per above and WossOccurring (talk · contribs). I don't see how these are a problem (WP:ILIKEIT). And WossOccurring, for responding to single keep !vote. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. All deleted WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax or WP:CSD#A9 JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Buckley

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These articles about a 13-year-old Portuguese singer-songwriter and his records appear to be a hoax. The articles are completely unreferenced; see the main article's talk page for searches, which turn up absolutely nothing relevant. The record label's website does not mention him, there is an Allmusic entry but it's someone else, and there are no articles in Portuguese Wikipedia. From this old version of the user page of the author Salgado96 (talk · contribs) it appears that he himself is "Bruce Buckley". JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apparent hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete preferably speedily. This is an unreferenced (and unreference-able) blp of a minor. I'm virtually positive this is a hoax. See Davis J. Johnson on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Same photo, same "real name" given for the artist (Renato Miguel Salgado de Freitas). And worse, the Portguese WP reveals the name of his school, as well as an exact birth date which also appeared in an earlier version of the Bruce Buckley article [7]. Voceditenore (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:MiguelRob has now created Davis J. Johnson (singer) here (also edited by Salgado96). I've added it to the deletion list along with a spurious album article One Time (album). Note also the extensive edits to Salgado96's user page by two IPs attached to the vodafone network in the UK.[8] . Voceditenore (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks, Voceneditore, now I look, there is undesirable personal information in the history of this one, too. It's a clear enough hoax that I am now happy to delete it WP:CSD#G3, and all the others can go WP:CSD#A9. JohnCD (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Dreams We Fall into the Eternal Lake

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this demo. Joe Chill (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NALBUMS, demos are only notable if significant coverage exists from reliable sources. I can't find anything to indicate this demo meets these standards. Gongshow ^Talk 17:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS.--Canniba loki 02:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge: Agreed. Merge historical content to Soilwork. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page and merge any relevant info into the band's article, per WP:NALBUMS. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dinaman

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable publication WuhWuzDat 16:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral a weekly news magazine in a major country certainly could be notable, but the article is written so poorly it's impossible to tell one way or the other. It's possible some editing might save this, but as written it's hopeless and might be better to delete the whole thing and start over. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's now back to being a stub. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of its sponsorship by the major English-language Indian newspaper and the notable editors. I agree that's indirect, more so than I would like, but it's all I can do at with the existing cultural bias. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 07:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Couldn't believe my eyes 1 minute after I added some categories: Good job SpacemanSpiff! --Crusio (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. easily meets meets WP:NMEDIA. Its from the TOI group and that itself is enough to meet "significant publication in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets" --Sodabottle (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of the editors and sub-editors of the magazine are recipients of India's two major literary awards -- Sahitya Akademi Award and Jnanpith Award, but most of the info is hidden behind paywalls or not previewable on gbooks. I've added what I had accesss to, but the article can be significantly expanded by someone with access to sources. -SpacemanSpiff 08:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MUST KEEP Dinaman was a great magazine and anyone familiar with Hindi journalism, and we are talking a population that may be half of the size of the most spoken language in the world. we should improvise it and get more information. Dinaman set the gold standard and we need to understand that. I am surprised someone had the wisdom to talk about it.

~~Keep~~ Most notable publication in Hindi. 25 years with Dinamaan were a high point in Hindi journalism.
Comment Apparently this magazine's time on WP has come... There is a second article on this journal, Dinamaan, that was created yesterday... --Crusio (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd article was redirected to the 1st, as it was a blatant attempt by the original article author to get around this AfD. WuhWuzDat 11:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its interesting to see how what was historic has to be defended in a world where its unknown. Edit it, improve it but please figure out a way of not losing good because we don't know it. Dinaman was clearly a notable magazine and it should have been on Wiki a long time ago.
THIS WAS A GREAT MAGAZINE. HOPE SOMEONE DOES JUSTICE TO IT ON WIKIPEDIA. THE TROUBLE WITH THE STUFF ABOUT BEFORE DIGITAL MEDIA BECAME PROMINENT IS THAT IT TREATS THE REST AS IF IT DID NOT EXIST. AM GLAD TO SEE IT HERE. HOPE SOME OF THE MILLIONS OF ITS FANS IMPROVE THE WRITE UP.

whoever calls it non notable probably has a lot to learn. it will be great if this person could achieve a millionth of what Dinaman was in the quarter century it enlightened the millions of Hindi language readers—Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.128.76 (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to anonymous IPs: Please stop yelling. There is not a single "delete" !vote apart from the nom and many "keep" !votes, so this is not going to get deleted. --Crusio (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep that's good news. may be the one who nominated it should lose his rights to nominate. wish he took the same precaution as others did. i think the problems seem to have begun with the nomination.
Weak keep and expand. Seems to be notable per notability guidelines and some current sources; an increased number of reliable sources needs to be incorporated. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep it will be good to improvise it. some history, some writers, editors, key contributions etc will be helpful
- Struck out the duplicates by IP hopper. -SpacemanSpiff 06:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Dreams

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this unreleased album. Joe Chill (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NALBUMS, "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." I can not find the coverage needed to satisfy the criteria. Gongshow ^Talk 17:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This album, although unreleased, was a significant part of Laura Branigan's career. One of the singles released, "Looking Out For Number One" was a dance hit and gave solid proof that Branigan could make it in the music business.This album was also the reason that Ahmet Ertegun, founder and president (at the time) of Atlantic signed her. Branigan had a 13 year collaboration with Atlantic, releasing every one of her 7 studio albums, and one "best-of" album. The importance of this album, "Silver Dreams" easily warrants having its own Wikipedia Page! -WhakoJacko2009 - 1/1/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhakoJacko2009 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's irrelevant. The article fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The album itself may have been canceled and remains unreleased but there was a single released from it which became Branigan's very first club hit. This means that it is notable due to being Branigan's "big break" as it were, and also the beginning of huge success. The article's content is sourced with suitable references and could easily be expanded to cover more information about the single. Dell9300 (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This warrants a mention on the artist's page, certainly, but is not notable in and of itself per WP:NALBUMS. --A1octopus (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the album is not notable, if there is significant coverage for the single then a new page should be created for it. The single is mentioned in the artist's page already. J04n(talk page) 03:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These is no significant coverage in reliable sources that I am able to find that cover this album. If, as asserted, that the album was a signficant part of her career, then this would have been written about in some fashion. -- Whpq (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I question that the single was Branigan's big break; her WP biography says only that "a single called "Looking Out For Number One" made a brief appearance on the U.S. Dance chart." Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail WP:NALBUMS. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A mention may be made in the Halfnelson (band) article that the band made a demo of this name - though a redirect wouold not be appropriate as the title is an unlikely search term. SilkTork *^YES! 14:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Woofer in Tweeter's Clothing Demos (Unreleased)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this unreleased album. Joe Chill (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete a demo, never commercially released (should not be confused with the undeniably notable 1972 album A Woofer in Tweeter's Clothing). Demo recordings aren't notable except in truly unusual circumstances. "Weak" delete because I really can't bring myself to vote full delete on a Sparks record. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete/Merge: My Weak Delete vote is for the same reasons as Starblind above, because there is historical interest and notability for the associated artists. If the decision here is to delete, then the informationin this article should be merged into thr History section of Halfnelson. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No reliable sources. Books are self-published, and the main source website is her own. SilkTork *^YES! 14:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Om

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep. she is an author and recording artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.175.110 (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It could be deleted, but you know that somebody wants to look it up and find them, and + she's an author. I say keep. Old Al (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the closest thing to a reliable source I could find is a two-paragraph mention in Yoga Journal magazine March 2008. Nothing else at all that I could find, and I don't think that by itself is enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Cunard (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dharma Mittra

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 03:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding quite a few third-party references to him and his work, as well as many yoga studios across the US that follow his style or whatever. He may not be of huge notability outside the field of yoga, but within that field he appears quite notable. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 01:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be notable. There'a an article about him here--Gaura79 (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note

Relisted after vandalism by IP [9]. Also, warned the IP. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep "Non-notable religious leader" (?), he's a yoga teacher, and notable. Mentioned in "Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, Volume 3" [10] and therefore per def notable. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Due to concerns over verifiability and hence also notability. Sandstein 07:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Rumyantseva

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sourced autobiography Истребительница (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wow, this one is really quite something. I do not have a definitive opinion yet but at the moment I am leaning towards delete, based on WP:V and WP:BLP concerns. The article is clearly relentlessly self-promotional and looks to be a WP:AUTO or WP:COI case. I looked through the talk page of the ru-wiki version of the article and people there are also complaining about not being able to verify various things, about WP:RS issues with sources cited etc. Various googlenews, googlescholar and googlebooks searches for the name of the author (both in English and in Russian) also produce fairly little, which is hard to reconcile with the grand claims made in the article (here is a sample search in Russian[11]). I tried to do some worldcat searches for various versions of transliteration of the subject's name but did not find anything that looks like her books (maybe someone else should give it another try, though). This is all pretty strange given the grandiose claims made in the article. One thing that does check out is the "best economist" prize but the people at the talk page of the ru-wiki version of the article claim that the organization that made the award is not really notable itself. Basically, I have no idea how we here can untangle this mess and decide what is and what is not verifiable from the information in the article and the current text does not look salvageable to me... If someone with some economics background and some knowledge of Russian can comment here, that'd be good. Nsk92 (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By the time that a BLP gets to AfD it is required that notability be demonstrated explicitly. The extensive researches of Nsk92 have failed to turn up anything of deciding substance. GS gives two cites of 36 and 18, which is nowhere near enough. The genealogical evidence is charming but would confer notability only on the close family of a reigning monarch. If further evidence appears I am prepared to change my vote. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
~~Keep~~Comment. Looks notable to me.Biophys (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to be more specific? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

an author of 35 books.Biophys (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A search of Google books and Google Scholar with -author:"Elena Rumyantseva"- gives zero relevant hits. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Do you really suggest that all book references that are currently included in this article were fake? They do not look fake.Biophys (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Uncertain article needs trimming down to proper size , perhaps 1/10, and translation from google-english, , and made less like a CV, but the presumption is that an author such as this is important. I'm looking further to try to identify the books. The google translation of the Russian talk p is fascinating [12] -- there is a repeated assertion that her noble origins are what make her important, and a discussion of whether the degree of her noble ancestry is sufficiently distinguished, but that's the part I think we would all remove here as totally irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC), I have not yet succeeded in identifying the books. Reading more of the talk page, it is seriously questioned whether all the supporting material are actually independent, or were written also by her. It is hard to judge the reputations of people on another WP, and I would appreciate it if Biophys or someone else actually knowledgeable could comment in detail. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She appear to be a notable person based on the article in ruwiki. Sorry, but I do not have time to actually find and read her books. And I do not care if this article kept or deleted. Let's delete. Not a big deal. Biophys (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ultimately I don't see the article's text as salvageable and don't see how to separate verifiable from non-verifiable bits. In this case I think WP:V and WP:BLP concerns outweigh the other considerations. Nsk92 (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a sample book listed in the article, «the Technique an estimation of productivity of agrarian reforms. Calculations on 51 country of the world» (1999; ISBN 985-6320-51-8), and tried to check the library holdings for its ISBN number. Worldcat has no entry for this book[13], Open Library also has nothing[14], Internet Book Database has nothing[15], Karlsruhe Virtual catalog has nothing[16]. This suggests to me that either the ISBN is invalid or that the book is really obscure. Nsk92 (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Nsk92, this fails WP:V, one of our core policies. It's possible there is a core of notable truth to all this, but we're not going to find it by sifting this article. I tried Google news (for her name in Roman characters) but found only a French-language story from 2005 about a stampede at a party that killed a college student from Murmansk by the same name. There are several other stories about different people named Yelena Rumyantseva but I'm not sure whether any of them match the subject of our article and in any case there still doesn't seem enough to go by even to stub this down to something believable. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this mess of an "article" for failing WP:V, the topic might be allowable if properly written and sourced. Abductive (reasoning) 05:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete The sources provided do not appear to meet the requirement of "significant coverage in third party sources," some of the "keep" arguments are not based on policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gopiparadhana

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now This article is sourced, a Google search turns up additional possible sources, and many more might be found if searches for sources in another language (Hindi?) were performed. Ism schism, would you mind expanding your rationale for deletion? WP:JNN is considered an argument to avoid. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure; the article is a BLP, so it has higher standards than other articles. The references used for this article are non reliable sources. Without reliable sources, this article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Taking that into consideration, I think the subject of this article meets WP:CREATIVE criteria #3 and #4, as his translations have been subject to significant critical attention, as documented in reliable sources. Keep.—Preceding unsigned comment added by A Stop at Willoughby (talk • contribs) 21:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that the translations, "have been subject to significant critical attention, as documented in reliable sources." Where is the "significant critical attention" and where are the reliable sources. So far, there is a forward to a book the subject translated, and the other is a news article that mentions him in passing. This subject clearly does NOT meet WP:CREATIVE criteria #3 and #4, and as such the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He completed translation of the Bhagavata Purana (Srimad Bhagavatam). This translation has received quite a lot of reviews and is the most popular translation of this Purana. He also translated another major sanskrit text - Brihad-bhagavatamrita [17]. He works as a Sanskrit translator and editor for a leading publisher Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. He received coverage as such in this article [18]. He seems sufficiently notable to me.--Gaura79 (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply There are no reliable sources that attribute notability to this individual. As such, the indivudual is not notable. Please provide reliable sources if you feel that the subject is notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 03:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added some references from The Miami Herald article. Below I provide an exerpt from a review of Gopiparanadhana and his translation of Sanskrit text Brihad Bhagavatamrita by Joseph T. O’Connell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, St. Michael’s College, University of Toronto. It was published as a foreword to the Brihad Bhagavatamrita BBT edition.

Excerpt from review of one of Gopiparadhana's translation. Click at right to show.

The present edition includes translations by Gopiparanadhana Dasa of both the basic poem and its commentary (plus appendices, glossary, etc.). This is an extraordinary labor of love! The Brihad-bhagavatamrita alone contains some 2,500 Sanskrit verses, each requiring painstaking care even when (wisely) being rendered into idiomatic English prose rather than metrical verse. The commentary is considerably longer and, although in Sanskrit prose, is far from easy to convey in readable accurate English. Yet the task has been done and done well, an impressive achievement indeed.
When I began to examine the proofs for this book, I was pleased to find that Gopiparanadhana Dasa’s English prose version reads clearly and crisply. Moreover, it conveys the excitement, wonder, and devotion of spiritual discovery that animates Sanatana’s own composition. The more I read, the more fascinated I became with Sanatana’s novel and brilliant retelling of themes emanating from the Srimad Bhagavata (but developed into much that is not found explicitly in that revered text). Depictions of progressively more intense and intimate modes of loving devotion build to a climax in the remarkable portrayal of Krishna at Dvaraka, depressed and anguished in absence from Radha and the gopis and restored to “normal” consciousness only by an artful ruse.
The further I read, the less was I conscious that I was reading a translation, so naturally does one unit of the narrative flow into the next. When I did shift to the task of comparing portions of the translation with the Sanskrit, I was pleased to discover that the English prose is indeed very faithful to the Sanskrit original. One might quibble over the choice of certain idiomatic English phrases, but even these convey the basic sense. From the literal meaning of the original, little is left out, and very little is added, in the passage from Sanskrit to English. Inevitably, of course, some resonance is lost in any transition from poetic verse to prose translation. But, fortunately, because the Brihad-bhagavatamrita is mostly narrative and dialogue, it lends itself more readily to prose rendering than would other types of poetic verse. I would like to think that Sanatana Gosvami would welcome his modern prose translator as a kindred spirit and an able expositor of his work.
The Dig-darsini, being itself prose, but prose in the peculiar form of Sanskrit textual commentary, presents the translator with a different set of challenges. In size, it is twice the length of the document which it interprets. In form and function, it resembles the complex footnotes of modern scholarship. In orientation, it assumes broadly ranging acquaintance with traditional Vaisnava themes, Sanskrit religious literature, and technical points of devotional aesthetics, theology, and philosophy. Faced with such challenges, many a translator—and, if not he or she, then the publisher—would resort to a paraphrase that drastically cuts down the size and simplifies the scholarship of the commentary and perhaps introduces an ersatz ideological or rhetorical interpretation in place of the more demanding and sophisticated orientation of the author.
Not so the present translator and publisher. Both Gopiparanadhana Dasa and the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust are to be commended for respecting Sanatana’s auto-commentary as it is, in all its bulk and sophistication. The Brihad-bhagavatamrita and Dig-darsini together comprise a classic of religious literature whose integrity ought not be compromised. On a narrow scale, it is a classic in that it is the template for the theology and spiritual psychology that have remained authoritative for the Caitanya Vaisnava tradition. And though till now scarcely known beyond that tradition and those who study it, it is—or merits being so recognized—a classic on a global scale as well. Sanatana Gosvami’s chef d’oeuvre is a masterful exploration, grounded in Vaisnava devotional faith, of human spirituality and religious psychology, for the first time being made accessible in its entirety to the English-reading world.
As the translator acknowledges, the English version of the Dig-darsini is a paraphrase, not a line-by-line translation. As such, it does not replace a close reading of the Sanskrit original for scholars equipped to do one. But, as the translator points out (and illustrates in the appendices), the paraphrasing is largely a matter of arrangement, not of selective excision or augmentation. From the portions of Volume One that I have compared closely, it is evident that Gopiparanadhana Dasa has managed to retain virtually all of the content of the original commentary, though with considerable rearrangement to facilitate reading. Were it his aim to produce a rigorously literal English rendering, some of his paraphrasing of Sanatana’s formulations might well have to be revisited. But, all things considered, he has done an admirable job of conveying the informational content and spiritual verve of the author—without bowdlerizing or truncating—in an idiom understandable to patient and attentive (though not necessarily expert) readers. I presume that the level attained in Volume One has been maintained through Volumes Two and Three.
There is a special significance to this publication over and above its making accessible to readers of English a Sanskrit classic of spiritual literature. This is the first publication by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust of a major Vaisnava theological text which disciples of the late Swami A. C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada have accomplished without his immediate presence. It follows the widely disseminated versions of the Bhagavad-gita in many languages and multi-volume translations of the Srimad Bhagavata Purana and the Caitanya-caritamrita, each of which is accompanied by an elaborate commentary. These prior publications were substantially the work of Prabhupada himself, with certain of his Sanskrit-trained devotees, including Gopiparanadhana Dasa, serving as apprentices. The appearance of the Brihad-bhagavatamrita thus marks a new phase of textual theological scholarship by members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. They have, as it were, come into their maturity as responsible for faithful transmission of the Caitanya Vaisnava tradition of prema-bhakti, loving devotion to God Krishna. What better way to assure fidelity to the words and spirit of Caitanya Mahaprabhu and his circle of immediate disciples than to enable devotees and attentive seekers to read, hear, and visualize the foundational texts of those very scholar-devotees who had experienced the charismatic presence of Krishna-Caitanya himself!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaura79 (talk • contribs)

Can someone sign this huge blurb? -- (User) Mb (Talk) 11:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did so on behalf of Gaura70 (see above). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Being a translator of works does not justify inclusion. Obviously there will be some reviews of his work, but it is not essential. Essential that he is a translator, and just being a translator is not a sufficient reason for inclusion in Wikipedia. I guess you both work for the same company: him and Gaura, thus you are anxious to keep him on. -- (User) Mb (Talk) 11:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources added do not review of the person at hand. He is only mentioned as part of a larger project. This does not make him notable. Nothing point to him being a notable translator, if that is the claim. As is, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I presented a reliable source which addresses him directly and in detail.--Gaura79 (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The above "reliable source" is a part of the forward to a book this individual translated. That still does not make this individual notable, although the original text may be. Do you have any reviews from notable Sanskrit, Religion, or South Asian Studies journals? Those would work, but none exist. As is, the article is still about a person who translated a notable book - that does not make the translator notable by association. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the Brihad Bhagavatamrita may be a notable text; this individual's translation of it is not. This translation is not a notable text in itself, nor is the translator Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~for now~~: WP:ONESOURCE (1 article in Miami Herald) and all other sources are ISKCON (BBT) sites, writing about an author of a BBT book (most publishers do that to sell their books). Though Brihat Bhagavatamrita is notable, but notability of the translation outside ISKCON is questionable. There are several translations of the Gita, not each one is notable as of Prabhupada or Ramakrishan. I am willing to change the vote if notability is proved by more non-ISKCON (non-BBT) references. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 02:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the second reference provided by me is not a "BBT reference". It is a scholarly review of Gopiparanadhana's work. The fact that it was published in a BBT book does not make it BBT reference. His Brihad Bhagavatamrita translation is the first and the only full translation of this work into English, and it has received a positive review from a specialist in the field. --Gaura79 (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be practical, if scholar X gives a unfavourable review of book A, book A is not going to print X's opinion. Forwards do sell books and can not be regarded as an unbiased review of a book. Also, the first few lines of Miami Herald (that is all I can read in the link, full article not available) seem to suggest the article is about ISKCON in general. Correct me, if I am wrong.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Miami Herald article is about ISKCON in general, with Gopiparanadhana receiving only some coverage in it. But a scholarly review is a scholarly review, no matter where it was published. The problem here, as you mentioned above, is WP:ONESOURCE. The subject of the article received coverage only in one source, which generally is not enough for a standalone article. I suggest merging the article with Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Your thoughts?--Gaura79 (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forewords in general are not independent sources and are arranged by the author. (User) Mb (Talk) 13:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging in Bhaktivedanta Book Trust will be an WP:UNDUE. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is to include only a limited information on him in relation with the books he translated and edited for the BBT.--Gaura79 (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, limited information can be merged into BBT if a section on all BBT authors is written. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 02:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also taking into consideration his position in ISKCON's Governing Body, I think he deserves a standalone article on Wiki.--Gaura79 (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the guy is the top shot in GBC Sastric Advisory committee, the group of selected knowledgeble brahminical advisors. [19] From it's inseption so far as I know. Wikid ^as© 03:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply As this is a BLP, please provide reliable sources. If none are provided, then the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minutes of the Governing Body Comission are a reliable primary source, regardless where it is cited. Are you disputing that Gopiparanadhana is a key member of GBC SAC? Or that it does not exist?[20] [21] He is also the author of the Foreword to Surender Unto Me for example, a study material of the Vaishnava Insitute of Higher Education, also used in Bhaktivedanta College and referenced in Vedabase, not nessesarly notable, but interesting to note.[22], the website of Iskcon Ministry of Education calles him: "one of ISKCON's most renowned devotee-scholars, Gopiparanadhana Prabhu" [23]. There is a lot of work for the article to become decent or good, but the subject itself is quite notable. Wikid ^as© 00:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply How is this "Sastric Advisory committee" notable? And, how is being a member of this committee make one notable? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -- Governing Body Commission is notable, and this person is Notable -- there are more than WP:ONESOURCE as per sources above. Being a guru, besides being an advisor to GBC is also notable. Sources for the article need further improvement. Wikid ^as© 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I agree with Cunard's articulate statement, below, on why this article should be deleted. Do you have any response to the lack of reliable sources? If not, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. At the moment, the article presents nine references; however none of them are sufficient. I have analyzed and listed the sources in the article as of this revision:

Analysis of the sources in the article

1. This article from the Miami Herald is insufficient because it is not specifically about Gopiparadhana. From what I can see in the blurb, the article appears to be about Elliot Klein, an oceanfront condominium owner.
2. http://catalog.bbt.info/d_show_author.php?id=3&target_language=1 is insufficient because it does not appear to be a reliable source; neither does it appear independent of the subject.

3. http://www.iskconeducation.org/index.php?p=news&id=98 is insufficient because it is not a neutral, third-party source. The article begins with, "We are happy to announce that the fifth Bhagavata Sastri course at Govardhana is going to start in just 75 days from now ..." Furthermore, this article only mentions Gopiparadhana once.
4. http://www.krishna.se/Gopi.html does not appear to be a third-party, reliable source.
5. The subject's translation of Śrī Bṛhad-bhagavatāmrta does not serve to be a sufficient source that establishes notability.
6. This e-book that was translated by the subject does not establish notability.
7. http://www.krishnamedia.org/e-books/Mukunda_Mala_Stotra.pdf – same as #6.
8. Srmiadbhagavata.org is not a third-party source because it lists Gopiparadhana under the heading of "Who We Are / Teachers".
9. http://in.linkedin.com/pub/gopiparanadhana-dasa/10/971/21b – LinkedIn is not a reliable, third-party source because the content is user-generated and thus has not received the editorial fact-checking that reliable sources receive.

Translating books does not make an individual notable. Neither does being an advisor on a committee establish notability. Only significant coverage in reliable sources ensures an individual's notability. I do not see this here.

This article should be deleted for failing Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as a leader of ISKCON, roughly equivalent to a bishop. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HAPI drum

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. According to its website, HAPI is trademarked. DaveCW (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further research shows that a number of commercial and hobby versions of this instrument are being produced, which I think makes them of interest. They are all basically steel versions of slit drums or tongue drums, and could be included in the existing articles on slit drums - an ancient and non-trademarked instrument. DaveCW (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cant say its highly notable, but the drum manufacturers website lists 2 testimonials from notable drummers (they have WP articles that are not currently disputed). I can see an argument for merging with slit drums, but i must point out that "things made up one day" and "trademarked" are not valid arguments for deletion here. trademarked products can and should have articles, if they are sufficiently notable. "things made up" doesnt mean things manufactured, it means things thought up. anything patented, manufactured and sold with any degree of success is a prime candidate for an article or mention in one. i did have trouble finding other references for this product, though. maybe someone else will have better skill at it. oh and googling "hapi drum" in quotes gets 78900 hits, pretty impressive (though i know raw ghits is not a pure argument for either keep or delete, it does seem to show name recognition). article of course comes off as somewhat promotional, but that, again, is not a rationale for deletion if evidence of notability is extant.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, I am new to this, I think there is an abbreviation I should be using, but "things made up one day" is indeed a valid argument for deletion. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_one_day As for the trademark, I cite it as evidence of a non-neutral point of view. Title the article "Steel Tongue Drum", or tell the reader why HAPI is significantly different than other brands of the same basic instrument. A patent would help convince me that there is a difference, but I don't think they have one. DaveCW (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are correct, things made up one day can be a valid argument. it applies to ideas or objects not in the pubic sphere yet, such as neologisms or unmarketed prototypes of objects with no press attention (i have this nutcracker in the shape of a polaris missile that i made, its cool and it works-that sort of thing). this product is manufactured and distributed, so the argument doesnt apply. its absolutely ok to have an article that is a copyrighted brand name. just check out the numerous articles on businesses and products here. we can use trademark images in articles as well, its fair use, as long as its limited to articles significantly about that trademarked item. i believe their website shows they have patents. the rename suggestion doesnt work, as this is in fact about this brand, not the idea of a metal tongue drum. the debate here must, and will, focus on the companys and its products general notability. i believe its notable enough to deserve an article, but others may not. the article could become a section of the slit drum article, of course. I do agree that an important part of the article should be how this product is different from other slit drums, but that alone is not necessarily an argument for deletion, only improvement. PS i have no conflict of interest. in fact, i have the opposite. i personally knew the person who probably was the first westerner to make and sell small wooden slit drums in the US, but they never patented, copyrighted, etc, and others copied them, eventually leading to this major music instrument category. Since this persons work in this area was not documented at all, from WP perspective it doesnt exist. sad but true. i would personally prefer they have an article on this person, and am annoyed that they will never get credit for what they did, but WP is not a memorial site. and since they never sold a lot (though they did sell to at least one MAJOR musician), its almost as if what they did was a thing made up one day. of course, i really hope someone else will comment here. we will not be able to decide this alone. hello out there?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then I guess what I am looking for is a new article on steel tongue drums - on the general idea, how to play... i.e. 99% of the contents of this article, and then this article would be confined to what is unique about the HAPI. I would say the same thing about an article on the "Fender Stratocaster" - I would expect that an article exists on "Guitar", and the "Fender Stratocaster" article was limited to what is unique (in construction, in who plays it,...) about it. I suppose I could do that myself, but I don't want to be autocratic. Hello out there? DaveCW (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has one Google News hit which doesn't look like a good source, and nothing else. Sources in article are not reliable. Abductive (reasoning) 05:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of coverage in reliable sources. The sources in the article do not suffice to establish notability because they are not independent sources. Cunard (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article should be moved to the Hank drum article as HAPI is just one of the companies selling Hank drums --Sonicwarrior (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Emmoth

I have only been able to find a couple lists of work he is a producer on, no information about himself whatsoever, notability? Freikorp (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I can't find any independent coverage on him but he has produced a good number of albums and written a fair number of songs. Perhaps a category 'Albums produced by Johan Emmoth'? J04n(talk page) 01:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree with you, I'd be happy with a category like that. Freikorp (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lampshade hanging

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dictionary definition. I have been unable to find any reliable sources at all, even when throwing in key words. Either toss outright or send to Wiktionary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Afd1 subst:ed onto page one day after AfD page's creation. --EEMIV (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. Twinkle must've glitched. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V, the original source is probably TVtropes.org. Polarpanda (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable neologism, apparently from a blog TVtropes. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Edison (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paramahamsa Nithyananda

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 22:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. He has been covered and published in mainstream media The Hindu, Indian Express, economic times, deccan herald. And he used to write regularly in Ananda Vikatan (behind paywall). has been a subject of controversy too in Tamil print media.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Here is some more links from reputed sources - LA times on the first Kumbh Mela in the US being inaugurated by Nithyananda The LA Times, and some coverage from reputed Malaysian newspapers new strait times & the star. He is also the current chairman of the 20 year old International Vedic Hindu Univ with its campus in Orlando, Florida. Acnaren —Preceding undated comment added 11:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is dreadful, but the subject appears to meet notability with the sourcing noted above. -- Whpq (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Kailashananda

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 22:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 22:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find nothing notable about this yogi other than the fact he has written 2 non-notable books, and founded a non-notable yoga center. Wine Guy Talk 09:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toa_(Bionicle)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a clear example of Fancruft, something which Wikipedia is NOT (WP:NOCRUFT)(WP:NOT). And given that another Wiki exists, devoted specifically for Bionicle (http://biosector01.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page), this page should be deleted. (Actually, two Wikis -- http://bionicle.wikia.com/)

Apparently, the first attempt to delete the article reached No Concensus (between 5 members), and the second a Keep (between 6 members). Nevertheless, the issues pertaining to it have not been addressed.

Since this is the 3rd Nomination, and the article has been tagged since early 2009, it's best to delete it.

"So Neutral that I may as well not even vote" Neutral Im really in the middle here. I can see that the nom makes a point but it doesnt seem like we should just delete it all of the sudden.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article cannot be deleted because it explains a very important part of Bionicle, the main protagonists in fact. If it ends up deleted, readers will have a hard time understanding exactly what a Toa is, especially give that we can't squeeze all the info in one section. The Toa are the main protagonists from 2001 to 2008 and will be returning to that role in 2010. I think that what this article needs is some heavy-duty clean up and having the Toa Nuva's info compressed while the other Toa team's expanded.--Twilight Helryx 16:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of real life info (the creation of the original sets, for example) may also help smooth things out. By the way, the number of nominations is no reason for the article get deleted and fancruft can be fixed. Again, the addition of real life info would clear this as a fancruft article.--Twilight Helryx 16:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep character lists are considered acceptable for fictional works. I'd like to see better sourcing and some cleanup, but there's no compelling reason to delete at present. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Lenahan. Taprobanus (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Character lists are acceptable spinout articles to keep main articles from growing too large. No legimate reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ten Sharp. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Way Of The West (Ten Sharp song)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NM : no chart, no award, no cover version, no coverage. PROD contested with this comment : "It is an official release and a important release in the developement of Ten Sharp. Because it is not a really known single, it is even more important to have it available on wikipedia." Europe22 (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Europe22 (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any significant coverage for this song in independent reliable sources. This doesn't appear to meet WP:NSONGS, but I will be happy to reconsider if any sources are presented. Gongshow ^Talk 01:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (and merge if desired) song to artist per WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I'd support the same for all of this group's other singes, which seem no more or less notable than this one. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ten Sharp, there is not sufficient coverage for this song to warrant its own page. J04n(talk page) 04:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn. tedder (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zascha Moktan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was a very clear copyright vio. ~~Speedy removed and turned into a very good A1 or A7 candidate. I'm taking it here instead. No assertion of notability. There are two albums but I don't see any sources for them either.~~ Shadowjams (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article currently exist on de.wikipedia with reliable sources here [24]. Would need translation performed; however, a rough translation shows that she has charted passing WP:notability. Calmer Waters 19:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nom withdrawn - Editing since revealed the charting hits in Germany. I didn't find those sources initially (didn't help they were in German). [Any other editors that agree are welcome to close (barring any intervening dispute)] Shadowjams (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. unsourced = unverified = delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Mormonism

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a second nomination, the first having taken place in 2007. It was deleted then and has since been re-created. Due to the fact that the original discussion was almost 3 years ago, I didn't feel good about just speedily deleting this, but a PROD was recently declined. Since 2007, not much has changed with this article. It's still difficult to find any sources on this subject that are not blogs or self-promotional material. The movement is real, but I can't see anything that indicates that it is notable or that we can satisfy WP:V. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--It is important to keep all the articles about the various sects within the Latter Day Saint movement so that they can continue to be listed in the List of Latter Day Saint sects and thus provide easy access to the various beliefs all Latter Day Saint sects for the benefit of scholars and researchers. Keraunos (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment--The references in the article to the Liberal Democrat website and the article in the "Times and Seasons" LDS Internet magazine show that the movement is notable in that it has attracted attention from third party sources and thus there are sources in the article that are not just "blogs and self-referential material". Keraunos (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not quite. Times and Seasons is a blog. Democratic Underground is a site where anyone can post messages; the linked-to "article" is nothing more than a post by a member who has signed up. It could be self-promotional or not, but it is certainly not a reliable reference. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while this may be useful to some people, it's about a subject that appears not to be notable because of the lack of reliable sources, and thus we can't write a proper article about it. Nyttend (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If there isn't a minor sect article it should be created. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Uh I'm reluctant to say this, after Harvard Div, but I doubt to what extent this is a continuous group of Mormons who morphed their beliefs into this confession, or is it perhaps a group of outsiders who have managed to take over an identity and rework it to their likings. Those movements occur in religions of many kinds, and anyone could ask that about many of the groups in 'modern religion' that bear little resemblance to their namesakes of earlier centuries (it's called 'reform' without an LDS tradition of the word 'reform' - as Calvinism has), but a case could likely be made either way. MaynardClark (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, although it may become so. The whole thing is rather self-generated, or so it seems. The first two sources were the founder's own site and the record of his registering his new group with the state. The third is a blog discussion of the WP article. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge While the article is not exactly in-depth, it is related to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a very controversial religion. Perhaps best to merge this article. RayJazz21 (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that every fact about a "very controversial religion" has to be included in its article. Of course liberal trends in Mormonism or the Mormon community should be covered in WP's articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no requirement. However, I think this is notable enough to be included in the larger article, just like other sects who have been scattered across news channels the past few years. The point is that Reform Mormonism may very well (and probably will) become quite notable. Take a look at other reformists. I say merge it. RayJazz21 (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, probably to the section on other LDS faiths. This subject is definitely not worthy of its own article yet (it looks like Reform Mormonism is only recognized by one U.S. state) but it is worthy of a few sentences in the main article, especially since it's so different from other offshoots of the Mormon church. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't seem to find any media coverage on this subject.--Pink Bull 04:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is actually highly unsourced and potentially unverified. In the 5 references: 2 blogs and a yahoo group. In the external links it directs to a Myspace page, 3 blogs, French Wikipedia article, and a festival page. I have removed them from the article as they are unreliable sources and cannot be used. Aside from its .org website, I have been unable to find any third party websites of notability and zero news media stories about the sect. I have a feeling this is a very small group of religious people that would hence fail WP:GROUP. Mkdw ^talk 22:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 5)#Rachel Hylton. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Hylton

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a contestant on a tv talent show. She finished sixth so did not place in a music contest and does not meet WP:MUSIC; she has not established herself since the show finished in 2008 and has no independent notability. Delete. I42 (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Merge to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 5)#Rachel Hylton. Fails WP:MUSIC. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She fails WP:MUSICBIO. No redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why no redirect? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 5). Which is what we should do with all finalists in the show (unless they (a) win the show - like Leona Lewis - or (b) gain notability away from show - like JLS). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just left a note at Talk:List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 5) about this AFD. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - On most finalists' articles I would say keep but on this one it wouldn't be. She hasn't been offered a recording contract and it has been over a year since she was eliminated from the show, so she may not get one now. She hasn't done anything outside of the series, completely not notable. Hassaan19 (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 5) - No notability whatsoever werldwayd (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keepscases (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any particular reason? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it is an interesting article and Wikipedia would be worse off without it. There is no down side to keeping it. Keepscases (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those are not in themselves reasons to keep the article. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, especially WP:INTERESTING and WP:NOHARM. I42 (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I invoke WP:IAR. This article must not be deleted. Keepscases (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MyWebFace

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not an encyclopedia article -- it is an advertisement for a freeware program, complete with how-to instructions. Two attempts to Speedy Delete the article were rejected (incorrectly, IMHO). A wishy-washy Prod tag was put in place, but I thought we could use more eyes on this to confirm its lack of notability. A Google News search only turns up a self-promoting press release: [25]. Warrah (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, this reads as though it were a brochure from the software's creator, with instructions and trivia like the privacy policy, which really isn't even about the software. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, WP:V. Given the part about the privacy policy it seems pretty likely this is intended as an advertisement. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, db-web. Woogee (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, quite like an advertisement really, but after the privacy policy part is deleted it seems better than before.--219.79.1.245 (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't really think this article should be deleted, at least it provides information such as age requirements of the software.--Tingo Chu (talk) 08:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this software notable? Woogee (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Half of the article is an advertisement talking directly to the reader. No indication of notability. Eik Corell (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part in particular?--Tingo Chu (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any sources to indicate that this is notable. And for a moment I thought it looked pretty cool, until I found out it's a browser toolbar you have to install. I can't imagine what sort of spyware features it must be loaded down with. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

José Filipe Torres

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO. almost seems WP:AUTOBIO. no significant coverage of this individual [26]. LibStar (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is not inherited, and the sources may not all be reliable. Bearian (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above comments. Looks like WP:ARTSPAM and I haven't found any sources to establish notability. Giving an interview on nation-branding.info and a quotation in Forbes are a good start, but they don't amount to "significant coverage" of Mr. Torres yet. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus not to delete; any merger or transwiki can be discussed on the article talk page. Sandstein 07:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of FTP server return codes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Move This page is rather a HowTo than an encyclopedic content. It should be moved to Wikibooks as it is written here and should be added to the current FTP tutorial. Ftiercel (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see nothing how-toish about it. --Carnildo (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. Them From Space 23:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to File Transfer Protocol; information here is encyclopaedic, not a howto. The WP:NOTGUIDE argument is better, but still weak in my opinion. If the article can't be kept it should be merged to the main FTP article, but I think it would be valid to leave it as a separate article and link it from FTP.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These type of articles are actually quite popular and these are much more of a summary than a how-to. I'd like to see this one expanded so that we end up with something more like what we've done with List of HTTP status codes. We now have {{cite IETF}} to help cite RFCs and other IETF documents as well. One of our most popular pages is HTTP 404 (currently averaging ~2.8 million page views per day, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Popular pages). --Tothwolf (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity is not the problem. It's not a deletion but a migration. People read the article where it is placed, even it is at the right place or not. Ftiercel (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously free to export and merge content into Wikibooks if you'd like, but there is nothing wrong with having such articles on Wikipedia and WP:NOTGUIDE does not apply here. As for popularity, List of FTP commands has been averaging about 250-300 hits per day [27] and List of FTP server return codes has been averaging about 100 hits per day, [28] so clearly these articles serve a purpose to the community. List of FTP commands would also be much more useful if it were restructured more like List of Internet Relay Chat commands, which currently summarises and references half a dozen RFCs. We could really use such an article for SMTP too. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Acceptable spin-out article. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Wikipedia is an excellent source of information and more and more we're becoming an authoritative encyclopedia. And as such I believe we have to keep ALL the knowledge available. --PJonDevelopment (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - seems like a reasonable fork. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is useful information, to be sure, something I would expect to find in, oh, say... a manual. Alas, WP:NOTMANUAL (Wikipedia is not a manual) nor should it be one. I'm not sure what the best WikiMedia alternative would be, WikiSource perhaps? Or WikiBooks? I find it strange that so many people find this to be reasonable information for an encyclopedia to cover, and yes, I realize, once again, that my viewpoint is in the minority. JBsupreme (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second choice: Transwiki to Wikibooks, that appears to be the most sensible option. JBsupreme (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - and expand. There is nothing resembling a manual or a how-to; it is perfectly sensible information to be covered. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic content that is probably best handled in a spin out article rather than in FTP. Yilloslime ^T_C 03:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of FTP commands

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Move This page is rather a HowTo than an encyclopedic content. It should be moved to Wikibooks as it is written here and should be added to the current FTP tutorial. Ftiercel (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to File Transfer Protocol; information here is encyclopaedic, not a howto. If the article can't be kept it should be merged to the main FTP article, but I think it would be valid to leave it as a separate article and link it from FTP.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These type of articles are actually quite popular and these are much more of a summary than a how-to. I'd like to see this one expanded so that we end up with something more like what we've done with List of HTTP status codes. We now have {{cite IETF}} to help cite RFCs and other IETF documents as well. One of our most popular pages is HTTP 404 (currently averaging ~2.8 million page views per day, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Popular pages). --Tothwolf (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity is not the problem. It's not a deletion but a migration. People read the article where it is placed, even it is at the right place or not. Ftiercel (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously free to export and merge content into Wikibooks if you'd like, but there is nothing wrong with having such articles on Wikipedia and WP:NOTGUIDE does not apply here. As for popularity, List of FTP commands has been averaging about 250-300 hits per day [29] and List of FTP server return codes has been averaging about 100 hits per day, [30] so clearly these articles serve a purpose to the community. List of FTP commands would also be much more useful if it were restructured more like List of Internet Relay Chat commands, which currently summarises and references half a dozen RFCs. We could really use such an article for SMTP too. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Acceptable spin-out article. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Wikipedia is an excellent source of information and more and more we're becoming an authoritative encyclopedia. And as such I believe we have to keep ALL the knowledge available. --PJonDevelopment (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - seems like a reasonable fork from the main article. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) — æk ^Talk 02:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rainy Davis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this atrociously self-promotional article worth retaining in some vigorously paired down form? Her only notability that I can see seems to be as co-writer of a song Sweetheart (song), covered and made famous by someone else. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC) WITHDRAWN BY NOM PER BELOW.[reply]

Keep – Rewrite yes. I agree with nominator that the article does need to be pared down. However, that is an editing issue not a reason for deletion. Regarding notability, I believe being nominated for a Grammy Award, as shown here from an independent source [31] fulfills our requirement for inclusion. Just-An-Average-Guy (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree: sorry, I didn't notice the Grammy nom. Withdrawn. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Not a problem. With all the fluff in the article, it was easily overlooked. Happy Holidays. Just-An-Average-Guy (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Peru relations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

noting that there exists no agreements between these 2 countries except 2 weaker memos of understanding. yes there have been state and ministerial visits but it always under the context of APEC multilateral forums and meetings. no significant coverage of any notable relations [32] LibStar (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refs to show it is more than one more criss-cross listing of two countries out of the hundreds in the world. Fails notability. Edison (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no evidence of a significant relationship. Australia doesn't maintain an embassy in Peru, and there doesn't appear to be any state visit between the leaders of the two nations. Mandsford (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no notability in these bilateral countries. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 14:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable bilateral relationship. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's coverage of Australia's relationship with Peru doesn't indicate that there are or have been notable ties between the countries. Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I sourced A$1.5 billion of foreign direct investment from Australia to Peru, with a number of minerals and mining companies listed. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the amount of trade is not a criterion, notability requires third party coverage as per WP:N and WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am continuing to find more and more Australian investment and direct ties to Peru, and if there was a strong Mining in Peru wikipedia article this article would make a lot more sense. WP:ITSNOTFINISHED is reason to keep, and just because the article doesn't yet have third party coverage included doesn't mean it's not there from sources we haven't located (the specialized mining trade press and the Peruvian press are underrepresented). Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

added two more refs today (on agricultural trade), specifically referencing upcoming trade talks. The relevance of this article is getting more obvious as I work on it more. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is WP:ITSNOTFINISHED a policy or guideline? it does not appear to exist. I'm not convinced by the additions, most of the companies you list Rio Tinto Group, BHP Billiton, SKM operate in many many countries not just Peru and Peru is not their main foreign operation. LibStar (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a distinct lack of non government sources ie independent third party sources to describe these relations. LibStar (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep folowing improvements by editor Edward Vielmetti. Even with the scarcity of non government sources, there seems to be a good IAR case to keep bilateral relations articles like this, due to the clear accademic and practical value. For example to businesses assessing the prospects for trade. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL for businesses it not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IAR arguments dont need to be valid in the sense of according with policy, as long as they show there would be an improvement to the encyclopedia. If you and Biruitorul dont like the pro business angle, what about the benefits for world peace and international co-operation, for example when delegates are at a summit they can check on the relationships other participants have with each other. IPE theory teaches that the more information is available, the better the chances of optimun outcomes being reached! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you're still using a WP:ITSUSEFUL argument. we don't relax notability criterion so people can find it useful. LibStar (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and Mansford. This topic falls under the general notability guidelines which require that there be direct detailed coverage of a topic in multiple reliable, independent sources if we are to have an article about it on wikipedia. I'm not seeing that for this topic. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as stated, no coverage of the topic exists in independent sources. And no, FeydHuxtable, we're not here as an investment prospectus for businesses, but as an encyclopedia. Learn the difference. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is simply not an encyclopedic subject, and crystallballing to make it seem like one is an old, tired, sophistical tactic. Dahn (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As illustrated above, this intersection between Australia and Peru is not encyclopedic as of yet. JBsupreme (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The mere existence of the pedestrian functions of govt. doesn't make the relationship notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trade relations count. In this case, they are major trade relations supported by multiple sources. They are natural trading partners, as are most nations immediately across an ocean from each other. DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

but are they are notable relations, there is a complete lack of third party coverage of this. LibStar (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libstar, there's coverage now from three newspapers (two Australian, one Peruvian) referencing upcoming trade talks. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming talks? You mean talks that haven't happened? Let me gaze into my WP:CRYSTALball. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh_Predators

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Edinburgh Predators

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable UK university sports team, which fails WP:GNG as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durham Saints

What exactly is it that defines this team as non notable? The BUAFL is an American Football league, recognised by the NFL^[1] and reported by such media outlets as Channel 5^[2] and The Daily Mirror ^[3].

The BUAFL has its own wikipedia page and, as such, surely there should be information provided by all the member teams. Perhaps this information should be included in the BUAFL article but with 56 teams in the league, the largest university American Football League in Europe^[4], that would make the article unwieldy.

Of those 56 teams, 46 have wikipedia pages. Many of those pages feature a greater depth of information than the Predators page but that is largely down to their having played in the league for nearly 20 years. The Predators are in their first season, so the page cannot be expected to be in such depth as, say, the Bath Killer Bees.

In the topic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durham Saints, one of the points made was this,

"The university football and rugby teams dont have pages and they are far greater in terms of participation and interest at UK universities"

That may be true of Durham University, but at the University of Edinburgh there is a wikipedia page for Edinburgh University A.F.C., Edinburgh University RFC and Edinburgh University Boat Club. If these clubs are granted an article, despite not playing at the highest amateur level, why can't the Edinburgh Predators have a page.

Finally, I would argue that wikipedia is a point of reference, a tool for finding information about things that you are interested in. For example, if someone was interested about the village of Torphins in Aberdeenshire, Scotland they could come onto wikipedia and find some basic information about that place that they could not on the wider web, since such information cannot be found. In articles such as these, it is the collective general knowledge of people that form a comprehensive, if short, summary of the topic. My point here is that, while the BUAFL or the Edinburgh Predators might not be notable to you, they may be notable to others. Other people may wish to use wikipedia to view the Edinburgh Predators page as means of reference, to supplement the limited information provided on the web (what is provided is cited in the article).

Thus, I see little reason to delete the page (my sincere apologies for the extended response!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.111.101 (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

The reason that the team are not notable is that they fail to meet the guidelines set out for notability at WP:Athlete. This states that 'the highest level of amateur sport' is needed, since this is not the highest level of amateur sport, even in as minority a sport as University level American Football, which receives little to no interest in the UK in terms of media coverage and attendances, then the notability of any of the teams in this league is not sufficent for wiki entries, as established in the Afd for Durham Saints.

Regarding your sources, the channel 5 clip shows a discontinued(?) late night sports programme on a minority channel, for the main part, laughing at the names of the teams in the league. Besides, the notability of the league, which those sources support is not the question here, but the notability of the individual teams within the league. Some sort of table showing the teams in the league should be included on the league page, but all these individual entries with pointless facts and match by match accounts which are only of interest to those that played in the matches are unencyclopedic. I was active on bringing Durham Saints through AfD and will put each of the other pages through in due course, none of them are likely to be notable enough, but each should be able to make its individual claim of notabililty. This particular team looks to have played less than ten matches in a non-notable amateur univeristy sport league.

Re your argument regarding the other university teams, you should read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as an aside my personal view is that i agree with the contributor in the AfD for Durham Saints who stated: "they (football and rugby) are far greater in terms of participation and interest at UK universities". Petepetepetepete (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durham Saints, which I believe would apply to most if not all other articles on university American Football teams in the UK. Pfainuk talk 19:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is little point in my arguing further, since I'm somewhat over a barrel in terms of the rules stipulated in the articles that you suggested I looked at. All I will say is that regardless of how popular a university sport is, if you are to delete this article for failing the WP:Athlete notability criteria, then you must also delete the university football, rugby and rowing articles, since none of them meet those criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.111.101 (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, we won't be getting rid of the football team: as a bare minimum, you have to take part in your country's national cup. They've done that. (I can't vouch for the other two, though.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to be the British equivalent of the NCAA. Top amateur level there. Grsz¹¹ 16:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UCH Sharks. Grsz¹¹ 17:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The top amateur level in the UK is British American Football League. This is not a BAFL club, it's a BUAFL (university-level) club. Saying that this is the British equivalent of an NCAA club is misleading for two reasons: firstly, it implies that the profile of university sport is equivalent to that in the US, and secondly it implies the profile of American Football is equivalent to that in the US. Both are false.

University/College-level sport in general has a very low profile in the UK. Most university sports fixtures - and American Football is no exception - get few if any spectators who are not actually members of the clubs concerned. American universities have stadia so that people can watch their matches. Spectators at British university sports matches generally sit on the touchline. In all but a very few cases, the idea of televising university sport in the UK (as in the US) would be absurd - even for a high-profile sport like (Association) Football or Rugby Union.

But American football is not a high-profile sport in the UK. It has a very low profile in the UK. And what profile it has is almost exclusively geared towards the NFL, rather than the domestic game. The profile of domestic American Football in the UK is not much higher than the profile domestic Rugby Union in the US. I would argue that, even if a club is at the highest available amateur level of a low-profile sport, it is not necessarily notable, particularly in the absence of independent reliable sources. This is not a case where the highest available level is the Olympics or something.

In the US, the NCAA produces a high-profile format of a high-profile sport. In the UK, the BUAFL produces a low-profile format of a low-profile sport. There is no equivalence between the two. And we cannot assume that a team in such a league is notable - particularly in the absence of independent reliable sources from which a policy-compliant article could actually be written. Pfainuk talk 18:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - American football at university level has pushing zero public profile in the UK. In the States, university sport is highly notable; in the UK, with some limited obvious exceptions, it is no big deal. It is also not the highest amateur level; that is the adult British American Football League. TerriersFan (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. There's a whole bunch of these teams. Most of them have wikipedia articles as seen at Template:BUAFL. Not sure if the nominator wants all of them deleted or just this one, although I can't imagine there's a significant difference in the notability of the individual teams. I suppose merging them all into British Universities American Football League would be one approach, but the article may become a bit too large. --Pink Bull 02:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Strip out everything that fails basic policy requirements such as WP:V and WP:NOR, and in most if not all cases you're left with nothing to merge. Pfainuk talk 10:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator and TerriersFan. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iteya.com

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Barely asserts notability. Sources only mention company in passing, or in a trivial way. Non-notable company. Bonewah (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. The Consumersit isn't exactly the paragon of fact checking or editorial oversight, and it's mentioned by way of a link that a bunch of readers sent in. -- Whpq (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per Wikipedia:Foreign sources, non-English reliable sources are acceptable as sources. I believe that consensus is that the article meets the notability standards for inclusion. NW (Talk) 04:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chalermpol Malakham

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD. Non-notable singer; I can find no coverage by anybody (although this may be a language issues). References, even if non-English, are needed to prove the subject's significance. Also potential BLP issue. I'd be willing to withdraw this if sources are found. Mm40 (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- Mm40 (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seeing how this can easily be a language issue, I'm quite sad to see this was nominated rather than put in front of a Thai WikiProject or Wikipedians who speak the language. By the way, this is not a BLP issue. BLP issues are about contentious material. This is unreferenced, but in no way disparaging or otherwise problematic to the point it could cause a lawsuit which is what this BLP rule was made for. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For one, I added this to the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions, which is presumably watched/check up on by Thai editors. Also, while I know it is not a BLP issue at the moment, it it's an unreferenced—and probably not widely watched—BLP, which tends to attract disparaging material. I tend to heir on the side of deletion when it comes to borderline unreferenced BLPs. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google the name in Thai and you get 500000 hits (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), so he is far from unnotable, he is only virtually unknown outside Thailand. The article needs references and some more content, but that is no reason to delete it. andy (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject of a major published work,[33] in addition to having released multiple records with mainstream labels and easily satisfying WP:MUSIC. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 06:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was in thailand 4 weeks ago and heard of this guy and now telling people about him —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdt1 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article as currently written is a clear delete - it does not cite any references or sources. If Paul_012 or Bdt1 care to add them then that could change, absence that - delete or move to user space for more work to be done on it. Codf1977 (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was my understanding that we expand stubs, not delete them. I'm not up to researching this subject right now, but that shouldn't be relevant, because AfD is not a venue to request article improvement. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 12:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I Think you missunderstand my point - I was not requesting article improvement - mearly pointing out that the artical does not, as written now, demonstrate notability as there are no references or sources, if you or Bdt1 can find any to add then my view (to delete) could change. Codf1977 (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is based on WP:V. This is the English language version. If I can't read it, I can't consider it verifiable. If verifiable sources become available, then I might consider changing. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Blaxy Girls. unsourced still so the temptartion would be to go with delete as the best policy based argument but the possibility of notability through music is also an option so a redirect seems the least harmful outcome short of keeping, whihc really needs some sourcing to demonstrate independant notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If You Feel My Love (album)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created by a known sock puppet (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Montana 4 and User talk:STEF1995S), although the title of an album may not be a hoax, none of the information can be reliable. 117Avenue (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here are some non-English articles. I can support this being kept if there's significant coverage from reliable sources (for the album; apparently the group also has a single with that name). Gongshow ^Talk 19:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there doesn't seem to be any improvement to the article. 117Avenue (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - you're nomination was already an !vote to delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per WP:NALBUMS, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." The group that recorded this has an article on Wikipedia, so is apparently notable. As does the label that released the album. Assuming that any of the sources User:Gongshow found are reliable, then this album appears to meet notability and should be kept. Of course, the article needs improvement, but there is no deadline for that. Rlendog (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added comment - If there are no reliable sources for the album, a redirect to Blaxy Girls would be more appropriate than deletion, consistent with WP:NALBUMS. Rlendog (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with or Redirect to Blaxy Girls.Deb (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 21:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Włostowice,-Puławy.-district

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aside from the possible issues with the article in the first place (see the current issues template right below the AFD notice), the article is essentially a duplicate of Włostowice, Puławy, which itself appears to have been moved by User:Kotniski previously from a slightly different name. Apparently, the article's original author created it twice (under this name and the other name it was moved from). As there would be nothing to merge, I recommend deletion with no redirect. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Author appears to have created this article with a faulty name then created again with a corrected title and was unable to delete this version. Sussexonian (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, this is just a duplicate of Włostowice, Puławy, and the title is so way out it isn't even needed as a redirect. (Please speedy delete the other redirect, Włostowice,-Puławy,-district, at the same time.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Di Carlo

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable. At this point, the only sources quoted in the article are a YouTube link and an IMDb entry for a person with a different spelling of the name and whose first film appearance occurred when this guy was five! Web and news search find several hits, but they are Ontario real estate agents or other corporate types. Favonian (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ clearly shows tony di carlo as a notable person, both at academic level and under STAGE name. Surely age cannot be used as a reason for deletion?! it clearly states that he acted from an early age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdt1 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strikethrough added as poster has expressed a stronger Keep lower down page. Peridon (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Clear mistake on imdb stating he played teenageboy/mechanic when casted as 'boy'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdt1 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC) --Bdt1 (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable per WP:ENT. Criterion 1 is "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." His roles have not been significant as the most shows he's been in for a series is four (Dynasty (TV series), which isn't particularly well-known. Criterion 2 and 3 ("large fan base" and "contributions to a field of entertainment", respectively) aren't evident, as I can find no third-party mentions of him. Mm40 (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Mm40 (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - obviously the user wanting to delete has a problem with the programme and this person as quite clearly Dynasty was extremely well known that lasted on US prime time television for 8 years. Admittadly the actor may not have played a lead role in them however he was also in films and other tv programmes of great PUBLIC knowledge. Other photos are available in regards to the philips modelling competition and also it is clear when watching Gordan Ramseys The F Word that Di Carlo is in it however his name would not be credited as there would be no relevance to it, but in the actual show he is. I do not see the prob--Bdt1 (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)lem in this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdt1 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC) --Bdt1 (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple 'Keeps' struck through. Only one !vote per !voter please. Other things are Comments. Peridon (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having seen The F Word it is clear that mr.di carlo is notable and will obviously be on screen further more given time.--213.152.254.36 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — From the edit history it looks like 213.152.254.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the IP address of Bdt1 (talk · contribs), the author of the article. Favonian (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I saw this guy on last nights episode, good to see him back on screen. NOTE for above, IP address' can be the same if at the SAME location/building, does not mean it is same person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.115.128 (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC) — 91.104.115.128 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to closing admin: so far, three "keep" !votes from user Bdt1 (talk · contribs) and I concur with Favonian that, based on editing patterns (such as this edit), 213.152.254.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is likely the same person which gives a total of four "keep" !votes from the same person. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I believe there to be a vendetta against the page from the above deleters as this is a legit person who is clearly in films/tv shows and a UK entertainment personality. Although the IP address is similar this does not mean it is the same person and as it is not clear (cannot be proven that it is the same person) the vote should stand.--Bdt1 (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete I would have to agree with Mm40, it would appear when you read WP:ENT he does not meet the criteria as notable. He may in the future meet the criteria but I can't see that he has yet got over that bar. Codf1977 (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: When you read WP:ENT 2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. This is true to Di Carlo, on the social website Facebook, he has thousands of fans —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdt1 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that this isn't credible proof of a "cult following" or "large fan base", it's also not true. The only fan page for a Tony Di Carlo is a football/soccer player with 44 fans. Mm40 (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thats quite obviously not true as I am looking at it as I write and clearly has thousands of fans. you seem to have a problem with good looking up and coming celebrities?! --Bdt1 (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave a link either here or on my talk page (or if you have e-mail enabled on your account, e-mail me). Mm40 (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Daily Echo link lists Tony Di Carlo as having received a BA degree. So? The imdb entry is for a totally different person altogether. That is, unless this person appeared as Sprugo at the age of 5, and even more unlikely, played a PFC in a war series at 6 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0732245/ . The Tony DeCarlo of imdb is to my mind fairly obviously an American - and rather older. Fans on Facebook? Come on... While I wish Mr Di Carlo well in his chosen career, I feel he hasn't yet achieved the notability for an article here. (I also feel that his name may be a little too close to that of the American actor who has priority by age and career length, but that is not within the scope of an AfD here - just a comment that might be of help to Mr Di Carlo.) Peridon (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MUST Keep I have already noted that there are a couple of mistakes on the imdb page however it is clear that Di Carlo moved to and from the States and after appearing in and on US and UK tv series / films he is a notable person. I feel that there is some unrest here and feel that if the people who want to delete di carlo had not of seen a picture they would be voting to keep and to NOT delete. Hopefully common sense will hopefully win in this case and the page able to stand. --Bdt1 (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, WP:HOTTIE is a joke, if thats what you're basing your !vote off of ;) Mm40 (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: the above comment from Mm40 was not called for and I find this unacceptable behaviour, extremely rude and ovensive to Di Carlo. --Bdt1 (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe there exists a possibility of WP:COI issues here. Bdt1 may be the same as the subject of the article or somehow closely related to him. I say that because Bdt1 seems to be taking delete !votes and comments quite personally as well as his claim that File:Dcmodel.png is Bdt1's own work. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hard to prove, of course, but two months ago an article of the same name was created by Tonydicarlo (talk · contribs) as demonstrated by this. The article was speedily deleted as non-notable. Favonian (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the above is not true whatsoever however I am tired of wikipedia being ruled by snobbyness, arrogance and all round rudeness and want to make a stand up to it. This page MUST be kept to save the integrity and future of wikipedia. thankyou.--Bdt1 (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no indication that the subject of the article meets any criteria set out in either WP:ENT or WP:N. Google searches provide no verification through third party reliable sources that notability criteria are met. No prejudice towards recreation should the subject become notable in the future. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Firstly, can you only vote once please, if you wish to make further comments please use comment. Secondly Bdt1 you should stop taking this personally. Thirdly - without wishing to comment for the authors of the WP:ENT, I suspect when they said Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. they did not have in mind a Social Network where you can get a following by doing very little. Fourthly - If, as I suspect it will be, the discussion is to delete the page, you could always ask for it to be moved to your user space so you can carry working on it and when he does meet WP:ENT you can ask for it to be moved back.Codf1977 (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So even if he went to America, how did he still manage to play a PFC when he was 6? There's no indication that this was a 'kiddy' thing like Bugsy Malone. I am assuming that Private First Class is meant, rather than Peterhead F.C. or any other PFC. There's also no mention in the article about writing or producing, which Tony DeCarlo was doing in 2004, along with acting in the film. I echo Codf1977 about the unreliability of followings on social networks. In respect of "if the people who want to delete di carlo had not of seen a picture", I would also like to point out that I couldn't care a tinker's cuss what Di Carlo looks like. (I care slightly that it should read 'should not've' or 'should not have', but that's a professional concern on my part.) I quote again: "I am tired of wikipedia being ruled by snobbyness, arrogance and all round rudeness". If this is the case, you are at liberty to start your own encyclopaedia, or go somewhere like aboutus or linkedin, in both of which promotional or self-promotional articles are quite acceptable. Here, they are not. Produce evidence that we consider reliable and meaningful, and you'll find us helpful. (Well, a lot of us anyway.) On the basis of what's there, no go. Getting wound up doesn't help your case. In fact, it harms it. Calm down and produce the goods. That will help. Peridon (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Endless ranting here by Bdt1 but no evidence of notabilty added to the article. Sgroupace (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable per WP:ENT. Evalpor (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I hope the bevy of WP:SPA's unerstand that although the body of his work might be pressing at ENT, it does not quite hit the bar. Due to lack of reliable sources, the BLP curently fails. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -this is defo a keeper --91.104.110.182 (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC) — 91.104.110.182 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Could you give your reasons, please? This is a discussion not a voting session. Without reasons, your post will probably be ignored, especially as you have little or no editing history. Peridon (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not seem to satisfy WP:ENT. SPAs, etc. usually do not help a subject's case. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I have asked Bdt1 on his talk page to explain the copyright statements he made when adding two images he has used on the page (File:Dcmodel.png & File:Tdcfword.png), Favonian has also identified a potential issue with a third File:Tonydc.png, ‎if the decision is to delete the article can you also review them to see if they need to be actioned as well. (link to Bdt1 Commons files) Thanks Codf1977 (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply fails WP:ENT. Might pass it some day, but not yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. All agree that WP:PROF is not met, except for Stephanefr, whose argument I have difficulty understanding. Sandstein 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Madore

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I would have prodded this, but this article survived a discussion in 2005, way before we had any notability standards for academics. The argument that he invented Unlambda is exceedingly weak; I could barely find secondary references to add to that article— it's not a well-known language by any stretch. Pcap ping 12:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unlambda doesn't seem to be notable and should perhaps be AfD'd as well. Usually math notability relies on making a discovery which is notable in its own right, as in appearing in a secondary source. There is no evidence that this is the case here. All the links from the subject's page seem to be published by the subject.--RDBury (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable academically per WP:PROF. Five articles on mathscinet, Maitre de Conference, etc. Mathsci (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His CV is on his home page, and it doesn't appear he meets the criteria at WP:PROF. It looks like, in 2005, the bio here was kept because of unlambda. We have to weigh how well-known that language is, but given that Madore does not meet the criteria in WP:PROF, I think that it would take an extremely well-known language to warrant a bio. I don't think unlambda is very well known. Honestly, I don't know if I would support a bio for the author of nethack, and that has to be much better known than unlambda. So I think that the article should be deleted for now. As always, if things change, the article can be recreated in a few years. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain because I am the person involved, but I have some comments to make. Evidently I do not meet the criteria of WP:PROF, and evidently this article could be an embarrassment for me since it makes me sound like some kind of academic crackpot. (I have no idea of who wrote it, by the way. I never edited it myself.) On the other hand, I strongly think that if this article goes, the one on Unlambda should go as well; this I say as a Wikipedia user: I've always thought that there should be at least a stub article for the creator/instigator/inventor/main author of every single item/event/fact/invention/work which itself has an article on WP, and this would simplify the debates on notability—but obviously the folks who decide on the notability criteria think differently, so this opinion is worthless anyway. One thing I have a hard time imagining, however, is why people invest energy in having articles deleted which like this one are fairly short and at least have the merit of containing nothing wrong or contentious, when those on—say—Charles Musès notable for his Musean hypernumbers (not only is this one nonsense, but it has great potential for confusion) haven't been nominated for deletion even once. I mean, I agree that deleting some articles can be as constructive as augmenting others, but the priority order seems strange (especially as the article has already been around for some time, and some people have spent a little effort in editing it). But at this point, a loud booming voice thunders: “you are not notable!” and I vanish in a puff of logic. --Gro-Tsen (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I replied on your talk page regarding the link between the existence of your bio article and the unlambda article. As for the existence of other troublesome bio articles, that can obviously be addressed by nominating them too. Pcap ping 05:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:PROF is a guideline not a rule. M. Madore above statement points out topics that are more important than the question of deleting a page about an author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanefr (talk • contribs) 22:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in view of subject's reasonable request to do so. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Question: Is the Unlambda programming language notable within the framework of Wikipedia's own guidelines? I'm leaning towards delete for the biographical article due to a noted lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We should discuss that in a separate AfD. The secondary sources I found are pretty thin, I agree. Pcap ping 10:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warlord UK

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability for well over a year. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. The band has released only a single album, back in 1996, on a notable label. No significant coverage in third-party reliable sources (a solitary radio interview is nowhere near good enough, no significant tours (note: "Meltdown Festival" is not a major festival). Nothing there really to pass any aspect of WP:MUSIC that I can see. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND, this band seems to be very obscure to find sources, if anyone has newspapers or magazines of the early 1990s, please help to expand!--Canniba loki 02:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediavision

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pretty neat.. but hardly notable.. fails WP:WEB. Suggest moving to project space to preserve.. (eg. see Wikipedia:Semapedia) -- œ ^™ 10:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [34], [35], [36], [37], and [38]. Joe Chill (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added Joe Chill's cites to the article, plus two more, I think. Its not a strong keep, but coverage seems sufficient enough for inclusion. (Note: There is also a turkish language article on it that I can't access.[39] --Milowent (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources found, coverages proves it notable. Dream Focus 05:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yes, the site has received coverage from reputable sources. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to RF Online. Cirt (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Armor Unit

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject has no sources or sufficient notability and should not have its own article. It's also orphaned from the RF Online article. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 09:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to RF Online. --EEMIV (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, or delete as second choice. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sociological Random

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, invented. No sign this actually exists at all beyond an unimpressive looking first-party reference. Declined prod. Hairhorn (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:MADEUP. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes. Otherwise, delete as WP:MADEUP. Шизомби (SZ) (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article strongly imparts a WP:MADEUP / WP:HOAX vibe. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. still not courced = unverified = delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic Code Masters

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely in-universe + No claim of real-world notability + No sources found in 1 year --M4gnum0n (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of minor characters in Chaotic. --Ⓔfitu (Ⓣ Ⓒ) 15:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —M4gnum0n (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, else delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Let the page stay. We still have some episodes to see where the other Codemasters would appear. Rtkat3 (talk) 8:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:N due to lack of third-party sources, else merge. Sandstein 21:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Conder

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely obscure actor, fails WP:ENT. —Chowbok ☠ 09:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being crew or stuntman or a minor actor in numerous films does not impart notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Schmidt. Joe Chill (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable crewman and "Reporter #2" type, does not meet WP:ENT. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Maple

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was created and then edited repeatedly by a drawerful of socks, one claiming to be the subject. After much hard work by several editors (and special mention goes to Rees11 (talk · contribs) who has done the hard legwork trying to improve and substantiate this article) we're left with an article whose sources are largely self-published or PR puff or not substantiating the points in the text. Because of that, the article doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC and I seek community input as to whether it has a place in Wikipedia. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 09:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I've checked about half the references and none of the ones I looked at supported notability. Many of them don't even support the text in the article they are being used to reference. I did find one news story that mentions Maple, Splashing out, but it quotes him on a different subject, and does not constitute substantial coverage. I don't believe the subject meets the notability criteria. Rees11 (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- there is indeed a bit of coverage of this person in the press, but no articles substantially about him. He certainly fails WP:PROF and I don't see anything close to sufficient for WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This expert on post-modern marketing has not yet achieved notability in WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The only claim to notability appears to be that subject is the Course Director at a university with the "largest cohort of charity students in the UK", and there is no independent analysis to show that that is notable. Many people work in the charity field and we should only have articles on those who satisfy WP:BIO – a level not achieved by this subject. Johnuniq (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after many edits, subject still seems non-notable and the article still reads like a résumé. --CliffC (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - quite evident this person does not meet WP:PROF, and since the questionable nature of the many of the sources has been brought up, it leads me to endorse deleting this page. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macrophone

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. per references provided by Samdstein Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right to quote

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The use of this term seems to rely almost entirely on a mailing list source and some Internet lawyer's website which (I think) only uses the phrase incidentally, and not as a proper legal concept. The article is only one sentence long, and part of that sentence – "...in continental Europe..." – has no reliable reference to it whatsoever. ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 08:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see enough references to suggest this is a genuine and notable legal concept: see here, but the article needs some expert attention. Alternatively, the content could be merged to cyberlaw or some other intellectual property law topic (again, expert opinion would be required on whether a merger is appropriate). --Mkativerata (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to fair use. Although that article is on United States law, a small section on the comparable law in France should be fine. ~~WP obviously can not have an article on every law in every nation and this French law would be of little interest to this site's English speaking readers.~~ (Sentence removed since I am sure some WPers think we should have articles on every law in every nation, and not really the issue here.) No information would be lost doing this. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could be of use to someone researching the subject and I see no reason for its being deleted. -- Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 20:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to fair use per Dufour. THF (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as notable legal concept, but probably better known in the original French as Droit de courte citation. Fr:wp has an extensive article with more interwikis at fr:Droit de courte citation, and there are several books dedicated to it, e.g. Le droit de citation: propriété littéraire et artistique, droits voisins et droit des marques, étude de droit comparé. The concept also exists in German and Swiss law as Zitierrecht, and in many other legal systems. It is indeed an example of limitations of copyright originating in Continental European law which taken together are similar to US fair use, and a viable article topic. Sandstein 21:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a sufficiently important subject in its own right, and a great number of possible references. Failure to use WP:BEFORE, which is basically making the assumption that article could not be improved beyond what it stands, or the basis of no investigation whatever. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC) .[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Museo Magazine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Museo Publications, LLC.

Part of a Massive spam campaign See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Museo_Publications.2C_LLC

Reference given does not confer notability. Clear Use of wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising and promotion and seems to be nothing more than an Advertisement masquerading as an article. Hu12 (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unfortunately spam campaigns are all too common. Nothing I'm seeing validates this article's subject as passing notability guidelines. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent coverage of the magazine. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 03:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Akcelrod

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Players are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below:

1. Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional. 2. Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition. 3. Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games. 4. Pre-professional (amateur era) footballers to have played at the national level of league football are considered notable (no other level of amateur football confers notability).

This is not Akcelrod's case. 1. There is no evidence he played for the professionnal clubs mentionned (Cwmbran, Paris, Tigre). He played for the Paris Saint Germain team, but at an amateur level (5th team). 2. He played a match as a substitute for Swindon Town two years ago, but it was a trial, at a domestic level. 3. No 4. He played as an amateur in Paris, but not with the first team.

I found one relevant fact showing that Akcelrod has played in a team[40]. In 2005, he played for the Belgian club of Givry. This is not mentionned in his WP page, the club played in Provinciale 1, which is the 5th level in Belgium.

On his mybestplay page[41], he says he scored 7 goals in 14 games played with Tigre (Argentinian Premier League) in the 2008-2009 season. The FIFA does not mention his name in the results[42]

To sum up, this WP page says Akcelrod plays for : - Cwmbran (Welsh Premier League) : no source, no picture.

- Paris Saint-Germain (French L1) : no match played with the first team.

- Tigre (Argentinian Premier League) : no source, no picture.

- Swindon, Bournemouth, Norwich (League One): That's true, he played some matches (it is not difficult to find videos posted by Akcelrod himself) but as a trialist.

- CSKA Sofia : He made a trial at sofia, but the club discovered that that Akcelrod has lied about his past[43][44] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.206.61.231 (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The french article has been deleted[45]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.206.61.231 (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is absolutely no evidence that he passes Wp:ATHLETE. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence he has played professionally. He definitely did play as a triallist for various English professional clubs, but the matches concerned were non-competitive pre-season warm-up games. The Welsh Premier League is not professional, so that can be ignored. That only leaves potentially Tigre, PSG and CSKA, and I can find no evidence that he played a first team game for any of those clubs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Cara

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously deleted on 6 February 2009 for failing Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article has since been rewritten, so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. On 28 September 2009, the article was created, and the creator, Hotrod2hell (talk · contribs) wrote on the talk page:

“

the past pages had way too many insignifigant items about Jim Cara who is greatly recognized as one of the only Guitar Hot Rodders in the world. By pairing it down and only including what is important and by supplying you with only two very good references, we hope that this article will be considered for what is truly worthy content without fluff

”

However, notability has not been established. The first reference is insufficient because it consists solely of an interview, and so fails WP:MUSICBIO #1: "Any reprints of press releases [and] other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" cannot be considered significant coverage. The second source, a YouTube video is not a reliable source. The remaining links in the article (1, 2, 3, and 4) are websites related to the subject's music career, and thus are not independent of him.

A Google News Archive search returns no relevant sources.

In summary, this article should be deleted because it fails Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Per nom. Reywas92^Talk 17:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are severely lacking and thus it does not appear to satisfy notability guidelines. Additionally, the "we" in the creator's quoted statement is worrisome--is that account used by multiple people? Cocytus [»talk«] 23:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extinction Event (novel)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was prodded. The novel is set in the Primeval scenario. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder. Unnotable teen novelization of the Primeval series that fails WP:N and WP:BK. Unsure why it was deprodded? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All that's needed is one article on the whole series of books.Northwestgnome (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:BK. Joe Chill (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to satisfy WP:BK due to lack of significant reliable 3rd party sources. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I think the compelling argument is that inclusion is rather subjective with no clear inclusion definition. I mean how do we define how klnow for being supportors iof Rev Moon? Unless that's documented in the sourcing then inclusion is always going to eb subjective. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters of Sun Myung Moon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is WP:Original research. There is no source for listing people based on their support for another person. Would WP have an article on the supporters of President Obama, much less a fairly minor person such as Mr. Moon? Northwestgnome (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The page has some good citing, though it definitely could use improvement of sources in a few places. There seem to be other "Supporters of" lists, for example List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States. Cirt (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the starter of the article I think this is an important topic. I have only listed people if their support is substantial and well documented. And yes the president does have lists of supporters, mainly those who endorsed him in the campaign. I do hope that all Americans support him, although maybe not on every issue.Borock (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the nominator said this is WP:OR. I am a member of the Unification Church and am aware that Rev. Moon has been very active in many areas of public life over the last 60 years. As such he has worked together directly or indirectly with, literally, millions of people. To single out a few and say they are "supporters", besides original research, also runs into potenial problems with WP:BLP. If WP had a policy against conspiracy theories it would run into problems there too. Also who says they are supporters of him and not he of them?Steve Dufour (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not the greatest article (and it should be renamed to "List of..." since that's what it is), however these people's support of Moon is well documented and this seems to be a notable issue that is brought up by the news media. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are two acceptable bases for such a list: those who are known primarily or in large part for their support , or, alternatively, those people with Wikipedia articles to show their notability for whatever, who are supporters. At present it seems to be the less defensible Prominent Figures in public life who have been well-known as supporters.... DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Most times I am in favor of Lists. I usually find them informative and typically they peek my curiosity to investigate further either the subject of the list or a person/place or thing on the list. However, in this case, there are no parameters that give guidance of who is included on the list. An example would be what constitutes support. Giving money to the cause or person and if so how much money makes it a support to all the ideologies of the cause or person the money was given to and does this mean actual support. An example from the article itself gives Neil Bush as a supporter of Rev Moon based on this article [46]. However, the list fails to mention Joe Lieberman or former President George Bush, that are mentioned right after Neil Bush, in the article used as a reference. And does saying a few nice words about the individual or cause mean that the individual saying these words really supports the individual or the cause. Remeber, sometimes we say nice things, with our fingers crossed behind our backs, is this tantamount to being considered as support or actually just Diplomacy . Personally I believe this list would be subject to POV inclusions that would vary wildly from individual to individual who is placing a name on the list. As such, the list would not conform to our current policy of NOPV and would subject the list to constant edit warring which would serve no purpose other than opening Wikipedia to chraagers of libel. Happy New Year. JAAG^Talk 16:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far all the living people on the list are ones who have been very public in their support of Moon, and have been reported as such in the mainstream news media. So I don't think they are going to sue WP for libel. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's still kind of a random list. Out of the thousands of people who could be listed only a handful have. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not a useful list. So these five people support this religious figure? Who cares? And if their support is in any way relevant to anything, why does it not to suffice to say so in their articles or in the article about who they support? Sandstein 21:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that WP is not censored. Reliable sources (in some cases major newspapers) have seen fit to mention these people's support of Moon. They seemed to think it was important. Borock (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foomy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've just viewed one of "Foomy"'s videos on YouTube, and there's no doubt that she's talented. I don't see notability here though, either under the "Foomy" name or as "Fumi Koyasu". I don't believe she meets WP:MUSIC at this point. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons mentioned above and the fact that I cannot find any reliable sources. TN X Man 14:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not seem to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Perhaps in the future, but WP:CRYSTAL applies in that scenario. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. tedder (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everest Public High School

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Newly created local charter high school where all sources cover a battle over education, without going into significant detail on the school itself. Article has also been tagged for multiple issues including COI since August. Article is currently a stub with an infobox. Optigan13 (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All high schools are notable. Stubs are harmless. Lots of references, and the articles about disputes over location are valid references from reliable sources. - Eastmain (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link to any guideline on "All High schools are notable"? I only see an incomplete essay Wikipedia:High Schools, and a failed proposal Wikipedia:Notability (schools). Right now I still see this as failing general notability as the references all discuss the dispute over accreditation, and not the school directly. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inherently notable as a high school whose existence is verifiable (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education), and passes WP:GNG in any event.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, verifiable high schools are usually kept. High schools typically gain sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I'm still concerned looking that all the sources are from the same writer, for the same local paper, largely revolving around accreditation and site selection, but there's no point in keeping this one going. Feel free to close this one, and block EverestHS (talk · contribs · block user) as an WP:ORGNAME. Article still has a host of issues, COI in the creation being one. -Optigan13 (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education and WP:SCHOOLS (essay/failed guideline). We have few hard and fast rules here, but articles on high schools are the closest thing we have to inherent notability. Recent examples of keeps of high school AfDs per these guides, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BEST High School (Kirkland, Washington), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summit School (Queens, New York) (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calvary Baptist Academy, New Braunfels, Texas, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poland Central School. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poland Central School, Phil Bridger also commented: "I don't recall any article being deleted in the last couple of years about a high school that is verified to exist, so, in this case, keeping certainly is the common outcome." I haven't been watching for years, but I haven't seen any cases either. Glad to see that article has improved since nomination, however.--Milowent (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dunay

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy tag removed by an IP. ~~Autobiography~~ COI biography, no third-party references. Has been speedied three times before. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the one who applied the last of many deletion tags. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Does the fact that he was awarded the ITSMA Golden award in 2005 make him notable? I agree the article has NPOV issues, but let's not be hasty. PDCook (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that much of the article is referenced from pauldunaysblog.blogspot.com, I say the article fails WP:V for the time being. Given that he produced a for Dummies book, I'd say reliable third-party sources shouldn't be that hard to find, only when I click on News what I get is a lot of press releases and false positives. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be said that the ITSMA is a minor organization whose Wikipedia article is a one-line stub, possibly A7-speedable. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment - This article was written by the subject's son (he claims this on his talk page). So, it's not an autobiography, but a heavy dose of COI.PDCook (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable per WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, plus COI issues noted above. MuffledThud (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more reliable sources from interviews and such, I will continue to update the page, give me any suggestions, or even help if you would like to. Dharokowns (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews cannot be regarded as reliable sources, since they consist of the subject talking about himself. What you should look for are third-party sources that are perhaps using those interviews as their source. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable person. The article creator has repeatedly created several other non-notable articles on wikipedia which were speedily deleted. A look at his user-talk page will reveal the amount of non-notable articles which he created that had to be deleted. Apart from deleting this promotional article administrators should also consider temporarily blocking the user's right to create new articles, since it is obvious that this user refuses to acquaint himself with Wikipedia's Rules. Amsaim (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That just hurts, I am trying to contribute. Dharokowns (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have found many reliable sources, no interviews or blogs, and am adding them to the page after I finish writing this, if they work for you, don't delete the page please! Dharokowns (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added many more reliable sources, please review them. I cannot find anything on his childhood, I will keep looking, I removed the blog posts I had as sources because you did not like them and I made it so other people can add sources for that if they can find any. Thanks! Dharokowns (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, the sources do not strike me as especially reliable, nor am I convinced that this person meets notability requirements. Additionally, there are the serious WP:COI concerns. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —PDCook (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, marketing page for a marketing guy. No evidence of genuine notability, sources are not reliable. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While normally it'd be fair enough to let the thing run, the issues highlighted with the article by those who wrote below combined with the SPA and obvious BLP issues led me to conclude it should be wrapped up now. Orderinchaos 16:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven John Butt

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little in the way of actual notability, despite the size. Seems to fail WP:BIO; all sources are either him or unreliable. Ironholds (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 85 sources and not one of them appears to meet WP:RS. While he has had coverage on CBS, it was a story about polygamy generally in which Butt was a mere example. In my view, there's not enough independent coverage about Butt to make him notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a massive failure of quality for the biography of a living person. SPA creation with an agenda. Keegan (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, big article, little notability. Serious BLP issues, as well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Shacklett

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and with zero GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There actually is a GNews hit here, but it's an extremely passing mention in a 1973 Milwaukee Journal issue. I can't find any information on the DownBeat Magazine article supposedly about one of his recordings, but even if I could I don't think it would meet WP:MUSICBIO: "multiple non-trivial published works." I wouldn't oppose recreation if more can be found, and I'm willing to believe there might be more for a seventies-era jazz musician, but as it stands I'm afraid the article doesn't pass notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the claims for notability are rather slight. A Google book search found this. But I don't see the coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Lesser Key of Solomon. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Focalor

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a content fork of The Lesser Key of Solomon and fails to meet the notability criteria; one of 72 types of demon mentioned in the main article. The article is unlikely to ever become more than trivial as no other sources say more about this demon than Ars Goetia, and can be easily merged back to The Lesser Key of Solomon. Wikipedia does not benefit from having an article for every religious or mythical character or neologism from every book ever published. Ash (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without Prejudice to Merging I'd advise cutting Focalor down to a redirect to The Lesser Key of Solomon and merging any reliably sourced and notable information into the main article. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I've been planning on sitting down one day and merging them with the parent article, but I'm a horrible procrastinator (I should probably get a bot or something, but again, procrastinator). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You and me both. LOL. Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with emphasis on redirect. Same as last time one of these was here, there is not enough outside interest to develop an article. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to a list per the Aim AfD. Sandstein 20:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (And this goes for all those other demons too). There isn't enough information on most of these guys to support an article. The goetic demons - barring a few big names - appear in 1 or 2 grimoires tops. Of those the only really significant one is the lesser key. Simonm223 (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Lesser Key of Solomon. merge anything useful if you like Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aim (demon)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a content fork of The Lesser Key of Solomon and fails to meet the notability criteria; one of 72 types of demon mentioned in the main article. The article is unlikely to ever become more than trivial as no other sources say more about this demon than Ars Goetia, and can be easily merged back to The Lesser Key of Solomon. Wikipedia does not benefit from having an article for every religious or mythical character or neologism from every book ever published. Ash (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article some time ago with information found in a disambiguation page. I am not too bothered about creating a redirect to The Lesser Key of Solomon, but would that mean that Wikipedia loses info on this particular demon, as it is not covered in the parent article? Also, is it suggested that all 72 demon articles be deleted, or just this one?--Commander Keane (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The same rationale applies to the other articles. I'm not going to blanket AfD but may chisel away at those for which no other unique information exists beyond that already included or easily merged into the main article. I have not checked all these articles so there could well be some demons for which a clear rationale exists to retain a split article (such as appearing in several other texts). As for non-trivial unique information, if suitably sourced then it should be merged into the main article - if the consensus is to delete the split article. Obviously a line or two of interesting description or background on a demon would be easily merged but several paragraphs of well-sourced relevant detail is probably a rationale to keep or improve rather than merge.—Ash (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I've been planning on sitting down one day and merging the figures not mentioned in any sources besides the Lemegeton and Pseudomonarchia Daemonum with the parent article, but I'm a horrible procrastinator. As for other articles, some of them do meet notability guidelines, such as Astaroth. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. These articles are probably going to always be slight stubs, since most of them are only known through brief descriptions in the primary sources. The descriptions of them in the sources are brief enough that they could all be included in a single article. He sets cities, castles and great places on fire, makes men witty in all ways... - wow, we have some of the same hobbies. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge all such stubs to a new List of demons in the Lesser Key of Solomon. This is essentially a fictional character in a book who is not shown to have notability outside his work of fiction. Such entries should be deleted per WP:N, or at most merged into a list like List of Star Wars characters. This would however need some rewriting to make the description reflect that this is a fictional or mythical being, not a real entity (see WP:WAF#Real-world perspective). Sandstein 20:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without Prejudice to Merge Anything notable should go to the main lesser key article. Clear content fork. Simonm223 (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romanesci

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible hoax, possible neologism - either way, all I know is that there are no references to this thing via google. Ironholds (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - incoherent nonsense and a hoax. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — æk ^Talk 02:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – agree that this is probably a hoax. The article creator has also added info on the Romanesci to other articles: [47]. — æk ^Talk 02:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a history lesson, if it's even true, which is quite doubtful. fetchcomms☛ 21:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable at best, probable hoax. Edward321 (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The keywords here appear to be unpublished thesis. Pcap ping 19:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough significant coverage by reliable third party sources to merit inclusion under notability guidelines. Cocytus [»talk«] 22:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. unsourced = unverified = delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of consorts of Paris

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Paris has not ever been the sort of entity which has "consorts". The Merovingian "kings of Paris" are called such out of convenience. They called themselves kings of the Franks, but since the Franks had several kings at one time, ruling from different centres over different territories, it is convenient to label those who made their main seat Paris the "kings of Paris". That's all. It is misleading to go from this to "queen consorts of Paris". The rulers of Paris under the Carolingians were styled "counts" often, but they did not have consorts in this regard. Then the list jumps from 1007 to 1864! Srnec (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, so does the list of Count of Paris! If you know your history the title was revived in the 1864 for Prince Louis-Philippe Albert of France after over 800 years of disuse! And what is the wife of a count? A countess! People will regard these ladies as countess no matter if they used the title in their lifetime or not. Same with Queens of Paris, obviously they never used the title (that can be added as a sidenote), but it would be of "convenience" for them to be called that since their husbands' ruled from the city of Paris, and there is still their counter-parts in Soissons, Reims, and Orleans.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" The list makes an interesting read, and would be unreadable if merged with other articles. Dimadick (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a second there, I thought the article was going to be about Paris Hilton's love life. Googlemeister (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The titles comes Parisiensis and comte de Paris have less in common than at first appearance. They do not designate the same office or rank. And do you really believe that the fact that few of the women in the list ever held the title "Queen of Paris" or "Countess of Paris" is an irrelevance that can be relegated to a sidenote? Seems highly misleading to me... Srnec (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we probably should be able to handle this with a title change-- "rulers of the region including Paris, perhaps?. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But to my knowledge none of these women ever ruled Paris. The list is a violation of WP:SYNTH if you ask me. There are no "countesses of Paris" in the eighth and ninth centuries, and the titles comes Parisiensis (7th-11th centuries) and comte de Paris (19th century) bear only an etymological relationship. Srnec (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. I'm no historian, but when a page whose content is contested is sourced only to a self-published website, which is no WP:RS, it has to go. Sandstein 20:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Bentleigh, Victoria#St. Paul's Primary School. tradition is to redirect and any useful material can be placed in the main article Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul's Primary School Bentleigh

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/St. Paul's Primary School Bentleigh

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary schools are not notable as a class (unlike high schools) and this small local school does not appear to be notable enough to meet Wikipedia requirements. Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC) (Note - article has previously been PRODded by a different editor)[reply]

Merge to Bentleigh, Victoria or the relevant Roman Catholic diocese. We generally do not delete articles about non-notable elementary schools, but instead merge them to the locality or school district. - Eastmain (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG. WWGB (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Primary schools are not notable. Reywas92^Talk 16:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if possible per Eastmain. Otherwise delete. Wexcan Talk 08:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Bentleigh, Victoria#St. Paul's Primary School per precedent. Primary schools are always merged to the closest locality / school district per WP:PRESERVE. Those who express "delete" opinions are correct that this primary school fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but they fail to provide a rationale for not preserving the content.
I have merged the content in this article to Bentleigh, Victoria#St. Paul's Primary School and sourced the information with the school's website, which is a sufficient source to verify this information. I have taken care to reword the content; save for the introductory sentence, much of this article was a copyright violation of the school's website. Cunard (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will convert the existing page into a redirect. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Bentleigh, Victoria#St. Paul's Primary School per precedent. TerriersFan (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and then redirect per ^^^ JBsupreme (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jump Joint & Other Scribbles

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jump Joint & Other Scribbles

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK ttonyb (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-published: Bogdania is both author's last name and the name of the publisher. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia, Haiku'd Adventures in Oz

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Australia, Haiku'd Adventures in Oz

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed, does not appear to meet WP:BK notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The only reference given in the article was written by the book's author four years before this book, so the notability criteria aren't met. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to satisfy WP:BK. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death Electro

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Musical genre that's apparently subtly different form of electronica... I'm not sure. There's a domain by the same name, and apparently a band on myspace. I don't know if those are connected to this, but I didn't see any use of the term that would indicate it's widespread as a genre label. Shadowjams (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any source that would suggest it's more than a minor neologism. –Merqurial (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made up. Artw (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a made up term. Bart133 ^{t c @} 23:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Legrand

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. ttonyb (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm only finding a different (I presume) Roland Legrand who has nothing to do with astrology. Nothing to indicate that he passes the notability guidelines. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:ab}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Bombshell#Comics. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bombshell (comics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This information is a duplicate of Bombshell, next to no incoming links. Bombshell is not sufficiently large enough to merit a separation under WP:SETINDEX. Labattblueboy (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge and redirect to Bombshell#Comics, because it is possible that someone search for it. Armbrust (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge or redirect but not a keep, as per my previous comments. --Labattblueboy (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question - And would the refs be kept with such a merge? - J Greb (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to include the references. The target is a disambig page, not a list. --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No question. No need for this.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 02:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Los Angeles Area Council. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Log Cabin Wilderness Camp

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable camp without any references to establish notability or elevation. Content overlaps significantly with Los Angeles Area Council#Log Cabin Wilderness Camp. Merger discussion initiated at the start of this month (Dec 2009) has only generated two opinions up to this point, mine and one user opposing. Article should either be deleted, or redirected to relevant section on other article. Optigan13 (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Optigan13 (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Los Angeles Area Council — Rlevse • Talk • 02:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on length of article: If it's short, we can merge it with LAAC. If it was long, and dominates the LAAC artilce (as it did at one point), it should be its own article. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rlevse Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back again. Major content was a copyvio that I deleted a month ago. The LAAC article needs lots of work before any camp articles are spun off. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant information and set this title up as a redirect; if the content becomes too unwieldy, I suppose we can discuss it at that time. Cocytus [»talk«] 22:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is evidence that this is a film that will be released in March 2010, and there are Wikipedia articles on other animated Barbie films, so it is likely that there may be an article on this topic at some point. However, for now, the consensus is that this particular article does not follow our guidelines. When the film is released, and reliable sources have written about it enough to establish the film's "notability" (as opposed to mere existence) it can be recreated. SilkTork *^YES! 23:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie in A Mermaid Tale

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article for film that either will be or was released, depending on how you read it. Sources show a book by that name for January 2010, but nothing else. Article created by editor|Special:Contributions/Chistopher_John_P.K._Sacedor who has since disappeared. Article now defended by editor Special:Contributions/Bianca_Anne_Martins with curious relationship to creator and history of creating similar articles. SummerPhD (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A weak keep. The whole article needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view and the speculation need to be cut out. But as the film apparently exists, we shouldn't delete the whole article. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see nothing to indicate this movie does exist. The author who created it has done nothing else. Several minutes after it was created, another editor (in theory...) came along and created the image for the article and started defending the article on all fronts. The second editor's edits include adding media reception info for a completely different movie, copied from that article, with only the release date changed. I've been unable to find anything showing this as a released or planned film. I submit that the creator is a sock of the second editor and the article is a fiction. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. If they show them, it's a keep. Otherwise delete. NativeForeigner (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 05:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found and added a ref to a cached page that shows the project is by Universal Home Videos, and several online fansites showing trailers. So okay... I can believe it's not a hoax. But how notable is Barbie stuff? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You had to add the cached page for a reason. The page you were citing is user generated and the specific page is now gone from their site. Released Barbie movies seem to be notable enough. This one, though, is either entirely illusory, canceled or forthcoming but non-notable. There are no reliable sources, so Wikipedia should not have an article on it. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yup... a cached page. ~~Note that hoax or not, I did not opine a keep.~~ Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, this film hasn't even been released yet according to the article. So we're probably in WP:NFF territory. I'm not seeing significant coverage by reliable, third party sources. Merely existing doesn't make it notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - More support for the hoax theory: Until recently, the plot description for this supposed movie included this "Enjoy this brand new Barbie story and then use the stickers to retell it, or even create a story of your own!" Couple that with the only sources I can find being for a book by this name... - SummerPhD (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SummerPhD. Upon reflection, if Barbie films are notable enough to get coverage, then this one's lack would seem indicative of it being either A) non-notable in the extreme, or B) a blatant hoax. Both are suitable reasons for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not a hoax, it's listed on Amazon [48]. I think the main issue is notability, is it really worth an entry apart from publicising it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perspeculum (talk • contribs) 00:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I could not verify that this is a film. It seems to be one of those "Little Golden Books". Abductive (reasoning) 22:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. While this film appears to exist (see this Google Books search), the lack of coverage means that the topic fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). Cunard (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted under G7 by Fastily partway through the debate. NAC for cleanup reasons by —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Dim Effect

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. The article is based on a single comment made in the quoted paper and does not appear to have entered into science lexicon. It does not meet WP:GNG. As the article currently stands it is highly incorrect, although that can be removed by editing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at best this is a protoneologism, but I doubt it. Most likely it is Headlinese. Abductive (reasoning) 02:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What I personally ask myself is where this bug could have seen the movie and what convinced him develop this hon in eight years, when evolution needs thousands of years to do so. I think the whole effect we're talking about is highly doubtable and speculative. If you ask me the bug existed before the movie or the horn structure wasn't as unique as the developers have thought, but that's speculation ;) --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This term actually resurfaced in my mind a few weeks ago, and I realized the term hasn't been used once since the discovery of the beetle resembling Dim. Since it failed to become a useful phrase, I'd say there's no good reason to keep it. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PhpQuery

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to JQuery and mention there as a "port". No in-depth coverage for this right now. Pcap ping 06:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; neither can I. JBsupreme (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party sources given. Notability must be shown by the authors. Miami33139 (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pcsp(emulator)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Prod removed by article creator without any indication of notability. noq (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I thought it was correct. Could you explain what I need to add/fix. If you tell me i will fix it. extreme64 (talk)
- Response to this on user's talk page. Jujutacular ^T · C 05:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 05:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A PSP emulator that only fully supports one game; Puzzle Bobble Pocket. Many games show some screens but most games still only result in a black screen. Seems to have some crystal ball qualities as well given the state of the project. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete software that doesn't seem very far along at this point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find significant coverage of the software. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

im pretty sure this should still say though. There is only 1 psp emulator that even allows more the one game to be played and thats jpcsp which is this projects sister. Would adding some articles like this and this be of any use to add to the notability extreme64 (talk)

The problem is that there does not appear to be any reliable secondary sources to verify notability. It may achieve this in time and if it does then the article could be recreated. At the moment it is too early. noq (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Software recently released that got a few new tickers on dedicated emulation sites that seem to announce every version of every emulator. But that's about it. We're not a software catalog. Pcap ping 01:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind and the fact that there's no significant coverage out there to establish notability. Just because it has a couple of additional bells and whistles doesn't automatically confer notability. Sorry, –MuZemike 21:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines due to reliable 3rd party sources. At least not yet, but Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Cocytus [»talk«] 22:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to PlayStation Portable, which could use a section on emulation attempts. At most a paragraph, however. TJRC (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Merge thats sounds like a good idea to me TJRC lets do that extreme64 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.242.147 (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Takin' It to the Next Level

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Takin' It to the Next Level

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased album without "significant independent coverage in reliable sources". Fails WP:NALBUMS Wolfer68 (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 01:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to satisfy WP:NALBUMS; article says it was recorded in 1993, but it hasn't been released yet, so it seems unlikely that it will, within any determinable amount of time, become notable. Even in that case, WP:CRYSTAL would apply. Cocytus [»talk«] 22:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *^YES! 23:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Usually, albums are merged. However, a merge would not be useful in this case, since the information in the article is unsourced and would not add much substance to the band article. If the album is ever released, the article can be undeleted. Cunard (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Scream (band). Not notable enough to remain as a standalone article, but information may be useful to keep in an appropriate place. SilkTork *^YES! 23:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it was never released, no significant coverage can be found, don't think it is a reasonable search term so would not redirect. J04n(talk page) 04:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NALBUMS, unreleased albums may only be notable if significant coverage exists; I can not find any. Gongshow ^Talk 22:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon "The Master" Chan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-referenced article about a seemingly obscure Canadian personal trainer; the article may be a vanity piece. Does not meet WP:BIO. Warrah (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References added to article. 18:38, 23 December 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.8.75 (talk)

Delete: Nothing notable about this user, also just crossed the border to it being a vanity article (where did "The Master" nickname come from, no source from that neither it appears to be given by somebody else). Read the article and you will realise that user:Atlasottawa is him, therefore clearly a WP:COI WP:SPA user. Donnie Park (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced BLP, probably vanity. Gosox5555 (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete* Apparently someone tries to promote someone here. The sources used in the article are retrieved from Mister Chan's website or prove Johnny Chan plays poker. All of them lack neutrality. The whole influence of this man is doubtable. I see no notability in this article. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus Non-Admin Close... This AFD has been relisted several times, each with no success.Dusti^SPEAK!! 02:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Costa

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local radio host, fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG, no reliable sources available for verifiability or notability purposes, prod declined by new user whose edits consist largely of declining prods Dravecky (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lots of coverage in reliable sources can be found, including [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]. Alison22 (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Boston Herald item is about his messy divorce, these Boston Herald items are a program guide mention of his local cable show in passing while describing a competitor, a short mention of failed contract negotiations, and another brief contract negotiation mention. This article about his local cable show and this one mention Costa quite a bit but they're essentially about the show, not the host. This brief mention of Costa "shocking" the press corps with a question about Britney Spears' breasts might make an amusingly trivial note in a "Controversies" section but again the article only mentions Costa briefly and isn't really about him. The only article cited above that's truly got Costa as the subject is the one about his divorce. - Dravecky (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since articles which "mention Costa quite a bit" but are considered to be about shows hosted by Costa, not Costa himself, and articles which "truly... [have] Costa as the subject" are only weakly separated, I would not accept the proffered distinction. Because these articles, taken as a whole, significantly and substantially discuss Billy Costa, over a period of time and with respect to multiple events, they establish his notability. Alison22 (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exercise: consider an article about a scientist such as Michael E. Mann. You would be hard pressed to find any coverage of Mann "himself", in a way meaningfully distinguished from his climatology research - yet it would be generally accepted that Mann is notable. Do we apply a considerably higher standard of notability to entertainers, regarding coverage of their work as not being "really about" them, and not contributing to notability? Alison22 (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While Mann has substantially more coverage in RS than Costa, the principle remains: it is possible for a person to be notable even if reporting on their personal life is negligible. Alison22 (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: Alison22 has been indef blocked as sockpuppet. Pcap ping 02:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there seem to be some decent sources. I was, personally, shocked to actually see someone I had actually heard of up for an AfD nomination for once. He's pretty well known on the radio around where I am, but I'm not sure if that passes WP:ENT under part 2 (large fan base) and I'm even less sure as to how that might be cited. Thus, I think it would be nice if some better sources could be found and incorporated. Cocytus [»talk«] 22:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisted to generate more discussion about the sources. Note that Alison22 is an indef-blocked sockpuppet. Cunard (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EvoX (BIOS)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant coverage of the software. Jujutacular ^T · C 05:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 05:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Do we have an article on Xbox mods? It could be merged there? Pcap ping 05:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Theres Xbox softmods, but it's unreferenced... Jujutacular ^T · C 05:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that article had some links in it but they got removed after they went dead. I have no idea what constitutes a reliable source for this kind of info. Obviously not going to be found in any books as that would violate DMCA. Pcap ping 07:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion. Merge it with the main Evolution-X article and redirect to that article. Done. Recommend deletion of page and redirection (I dunno how to do it).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *^YES! 16:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then redirect per the above performed merge. Though the content remains unsourced and sloppily written in the new article that is not under discussion here. Miami33139 (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This almost reads like a how-to guide but in any case is not sourced, nor is it notable. There is nothing to merge here in my honest opinion. JBsupreme (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to wikt:smidge. Soft redirect to wikt:smidge SilkTork *^YES! 16:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smidge

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Non-notable neologism, appears to be little more than a dictionary definition. TN X Man 21:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just a dictionary definition of a legitimate and recognized English word, even though the article represents the word as being a neologism. I disagree with the nom about the word being non-notable and a neologism, but nevertheless this article should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. No transwiki to Wiktionary is necessary; see wikt:smidge which already exists. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDICT. Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No objections to a soft redirect. Timotheus Canens (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing wrong with the article, but it belongs in a dictionary not an encyclopedia. Northwestgnome (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be appropriate to place a soft redirect to Wiktionary here. "Smidge" is a plausible search term, and redirecting to a dictionary is more helpful to end-users than simply deleting the material.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Dictionary term already included in Wikitionary as shown here [56]. Just-An-Average-Guy (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — æk ^Talk 02:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wiktionary, per WP:NOTDICT. — æk ^Talk 02:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wikt:smidge per WP:NOTDIC. Cnilep (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question When is a soft redirect appropriate for a dicdef? I haven't run across any before that I recall. Шизомби (SZ) (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect seems appropriate here. Cocytus [»talk«] 22:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alonzo Hawk

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is entirely WP:NOR. I checked amazon, google books, and google for information but was not able to find anything. I didn't think a simple redirect would work here. Peppage ^tlk 20:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To what are you proposing this be redirected? The article asserts that three movies between two separate Disney franchises have featured this character. I really don't see a redirect as a viable option on that basis--it should either be sourced or deleted, I'm afraid. Jclemens (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination seems to be entirely wrong as Amazon, Google and Google books all contain numerous references to this character. I have cited one in the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about the character existing, the character exists, I said the article is original research. The source you added doesn't give support to the article. Peppage ^tlk 05:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-trivial coverage does not exist for this article at this time. JBsupreme (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There is coverage from independent news sources for this character, as shown here [57]. At worst a redirect to The Absent-Minded Professor should be considered. Just-An-Average-Guy (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 115 Google Books hits have to mean something. Note also that he appears in three very different Disney movies. I would be pleased if the nominator would nominate any of the hundreds of characters with zero Google News or Books hits. Abductive (reasoning) 06:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barracuda atomic

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this as I have attempted a CSD in the past, but have been told this article is ineligible for a speedy delete, even for a stub article that does not indicates why this bicycle is notable.

Nominating this as individual bicycles are rarely notable unless for some reason, such as retrospective culture or have won a major sporting event, which in that case are highly likely to be custom bikes. In this case of this bicycle is none of these as when have a cheap full suspension bicycle ever became notable. Donnie Park (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete I see no particular evidence of notability myself. I removed the speedy tags because this was not without context, and does not fit the quite narrow confines of WP:CSD#A7. Therefore it should have wider community consensus for deletion. I don't quite agree with "when have a cheap full suspension bicycle ever became notable" -- "Schwinn" is sufficient answer. But that is perhaps covered under "retrospective culture" and is surely a somewhat exceptional case. Unless sources indicate some particular notability for this bike (and there might be printed sources not on the web for all i know) it should probably be deleted. DES ^(talk) 20:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete I have also been unable to find that the article has had significant coverage outside of advertising or buyer's opinions on the cycle. No mention of anything exceptional that distinguishes it from other bikes. At this time does assert notability. Calmer Waters 02:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. "keep" or "no consensus" would both be valid calls here. I'll pick "nc" so that if someone wants to renominate in good faith, they can do so. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One shot (music video)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable element of cinematography, complete with an unsourced list of examples. (WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:LISTCRUFT) WossOccurring (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note The nominator of this article has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of User:Dalejenkins. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins for details. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have an article on Long take already, that might be the appropriate place to mention that this is also used in music videos. Fences&Windows 23:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 23:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a good list single take music videos which can expand over time. Eveswing (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Malformed or not, the original discussion had 2 "keep" !votes. Therefore, I'm going to IAR and treat both discussions as one relisted discussion without any delete arguments aside from the original nom. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wet Dog

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. Article had an AfD nomination dated 8 September (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wet Dog) which I closed because it was a malformed nomination. Original AfD nomination rationale was as follows: "Nothing actually establishing their notability. has been tagged as such a substanital amount of time — TheBilly^(Talk) 09:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)" —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, according to their website, they've been in Q magazine. There's also some coverage, but it's all in German. They might also arguably meet criteria #6 of WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sto k odnomu

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: non-notable Russian television show, only reference is in Russian, and is to a personal blog Newt ^(winkle) 18:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put the article into better English (seemed to have been translated by a bad robot). A game show that's been around for 15 years, and survived many switches of channel might be notable, even without any following in English media. Sussexonian (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources found by a Google News archive search in Cyrillic for the program title with the presenter's name.[58] I don't have time at the moment to sort out which ones to add to the article, but I'll try to get round to in in a couple of days. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only two references are to the Russian equivalent of YouTube, and there are no English-language references. This is English Wikipedia. Newt ^(winkle) 07:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "English" in "English Wikipedia" refers to the language in which the encyclopedia is written, not the language of the sources on which it is based or the nature of the subject matter. I agree that the references currently in the article are unreliable, but many of the sources found by the search that I linked above are reliable, and notability depends on the existence of sources, not their citation. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you've claimed there are sources, but they are not in the article. The two YouTube-like cites are clearly not WP:RS. I can't tell whether the Cyrillic sites are RS or spam, but I have my doubts as to whether an obscure Russian TV program is notable. Newt ^(winkle) 17:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the sources are in the article is irrelevant to the notability of the subject. I will get round to adding some to the article, but my Russian is rather rusty (it's about 30 years since I last used it in anger) so it will take me longer than it would if I was working with a language in which I am more proficient. The search results that I linked above include articles about this show in such sources as Российская Газета (Rossiyskaya Gazeta), Комсомольская правда (Komsomolskaya Pravda) and Аргументы и факты (Argumenty i Fakty). What makes you characterise a programme that has aired weekly for fifteen years on major national television channels in a country with a population of over 140 million as "obscure"? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article "smells" good. If the info is correct then it seems notable enough.Northwestgnome (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger. We wouldn't be having this argument about Jeopardy or Wheel of Fortune.—Chowbok ☠ 09:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This includes a TV guide-type listing of what time it is currently on what channel. violating WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory. That could be edited out. But evidence of notability seems lacking. Not every TV program ever shown in any country has some "inherent notability." The two refs are to a Russian version of YouTube and are not reliable sources.Edison (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could you please respond to the discussion above? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentA Google search in a non-English alphabet is no evidence of notability, since few can tell what any of the results say, or if they relate to the article subject. Do, say, three or more of them relate to the specific program, with significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, which goes beyond ads, TV listings, or press releases, and which are not tied to the TV show such as TV channel websites? That would be more convincing than hand-waving claims that "It's notable!" or that it "Smells good," or that someone likes someone else who argued for keeping it. Edison (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have already explained above that many of those sources are focused on the article subject, and have linked to the Wikipedia articles of some of the publications with such coverage so you can check that they are reliable independent sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nonetheless, it continues to have precisely zero reliable source citations in the article. What it might have is another thing entirely. Newt ^(winkle) 21:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSome of the coverage may be in the publications Phil identified, but that does not prove that it satisfies WP:RS, since it could be a programming listing, an ad, or a press release. That is in fact the case if I run a similar search for a US game show, since it will turn up ads, tv guide listing or press releases in notable US papers and magazines. Stating that a Google search for a topic produces some results from well known publications is not enough to demonstrate notability, without some idea of what those publications actually say. I would like to see 3 or more refs which meet the request in my previous post, to screen out the Google results which do not attest notability. Reliable sources for either a US or a Russian TV program are more likely to come from a news archive search or a book search. If people want us to have articles about TV shows in non-English-speaking countries, they should be prepared to find and translate references from those countries, both to satisfy verifiability and reliable sources. Edison (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The search that I posted above is a news archive search, and I'll repeat, because you don't seem to have taken it in yet, I have read more than three of those search results and they are not programming listings, ads, or press releases, but articles with significant coverage of this show in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So I will also repeat. Please identify which of the reliable and independent sources have significant coverage. I am not denying that they do (my Russian was never as good as your rusty 30 year old Russian, so I cannot prove a negative), but it is up to article supporters to make the case. Mere hand waving, assertion of notability, and insult (as in your "you don't seem to have taken it in yet") are not sufficient. Please identify the specific articles which you feel establish notability. That is a basic requirement for any article. In a comparable Google news archive search for a US tv game show, the first several pages are fansites, blogs, ads for games related to the show, or sites deriving from the tv network or production company. Please help us to separate the wheat from the chaff. Please spare us comments amounting to "Trust me, it's really notable!"Edison (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[59][60][61] Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! We're almost there. Now we need someone who can read the articles Phil cited, and who can explain how each of the three is an independent and reliable source, and that each has significant coverage of the specific subject of the article. Google Translate yields only mangled English, and one of the three is behind paywall, with a $13 fee to view the article. Gogle Translate cannot tell us whether the sites are newspapers or blogs. For a non-English TV show with only non-English references, it is highly desirable to have more than one editor attest to the quality and nature of the references presented to attest notability. Edison (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried Google News archive for the English transliteration of the name and found a Estonian article [62] which Google translates as [63] into mangled English. Part of it may be about the show. Maybe its just about the Estonian version of the show. Edison (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki to ru.wiki. I need to see coverage in English-language sources before I'm inclined to believe a topic should be included in the English-language wikipedia. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Centericq

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DELETE. Centericq appears to be a text mode chat client which is no longer in production. I searched and was able to find 6 matches on Google Books, but all of them were either strange Wikipedia mirrors or trivial passing mentions such as "Centericq - instant messenger client that allows feed reading" or "CenterICQ (more than just ICQ)" and nothing more. [64] Given that the software product has been discontinued, it seems unlikely that it will ever be receiving any significant coverage from reliable third party sources, but I'd like to bring this before the community to discuss rather than PROD it. JBsupreme (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: Per Pcap. Sorry for taking a long time to get back to this AfD. Joe Chill (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. Found a review in Softpedia: [65]. Pcap ping 03:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also briefly mentioned in a few books, [66] [67] (it's only in a table there, I have the book) and this book [68] makes me think it was reviewed in a round-up in the March 2005 issue of Linux Format (that number is not freely online). ~~Alternative we could merge this, naim and similar in an article on Console instant messenger clients or similar. Clearly there are a few of these, which receive attention.~~ Pcap ping 03:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also found a long article about it in Czech [69]. I'm not familiar with that site, but it's ranked 385 in the Czech republic by Alexa. [70]. Pcap ping 03:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Recenze" in Czech means "review" according to google :-) Pcap ping 03:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, the site has ISSN 1214-1267, which presumably means it's an online magazine, not just a blog. Pcap ping 03:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like DGG put it many times, the fact that a software is discontinued, is not in itself a reason to delete it. Especially if sources about it exist. Pcap ping 03:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Third review in another Czech online mag; added it to the article. Pcap ping 03:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also has a paragraph in this OSNews article on console apps. Pcap ping 04:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And included in round-up review in Free Software Magazine issue 7 [71] (see web pages 2-3). Pcap ping 05:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Pcap's sources; appears to barely cross notability threshold, in my book. Cocytus [»talk«] 22:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *^YES! 16:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources don't seem to be enough to show any significant coverage of this topic. Doesn't seem to meet basic WP:N Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pcap sources, now included in the article. Passes WP:GNG. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Open source licensed software. Samboy (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jbsupreme is right in saying that centericq has been temporarily discontinued. Nevertheless, centerim is actively developed and there are many references to centerim in google. In Google Scholar there are different docments referencing centericq. Also, if we search for centerim in the wikipedia, it redirects to centericq. I would suggest to rename the page to "centerim", make "centericq" redirect to "centerim" and mention that "centerim" is a fork of "centericq". Mimosinnet (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's actually a bad idea. There's hardly any secondary coverage about CenterIM. Pcap ping 18:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources shown are trivial mentions, often not even more than appearance a comma delimited list. Miami33139 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From the "reference nazi", (that is me). Here's the coverage in one of the articles (the other have similar lenght):

“

The most complex of the applications I’ve looked at for this review, CenterICQ supports ICQ, Yahoo!, AIM, IRC, MSN, Gadu-Gadu and Jabber in the same application. We are, of course, only interested in the IRC interface, but as with naim, the ability to use just one application for your instant messaging needs is an advantage, albeit at the cost of additional complexity.

Unlike the other solutions, CenterICQ provides a windows-like interface built on top of the usual curses text interface. The interface provides you with a lot of information, but the screen can be cluttered if you have a smaller terminal window—even a relatively standard 80 columns and 25 lines looks a bit tight. The screen is basically split into three familiar sections, a list of connections on the left, including open private conversations and public IRC channels, the main “conversation” and information window taking up the bulk of the screen, and a small command/control panel at the bottom.

Unlike the other solutions, CenterICQ provides a windows-like interface built on top of the usual curses text interface. The interface provides you with a lot of information, but the screen can be cluttered if you have a smaller terminal window

What you gain of course with the extensive ncurses environment is a very comprehensive control and configuration environment that enables you to more effectively manage your communication and connections. Certainly a required element when working with an application that does so much.

The IRC support is excellent, supporting multiple servers, multiple channels and the ability to hold both public and private conversations. Because of the “windowed” interface it’s quite easy to switch between different conversations and channels, and I liked the ability to monitor and work with a number of conversations simultaneously.

You can download the source for CenterICQ from CenterICQ. There is also an extensive suite of documentation available through the website, or directly at CenterICQ Documentation. Building the application is another case of a configure script and “make”, but be prepared for a wait—the increased complexity of this application makes it a much larger build and, ultimately, a much larger target application.

There’s little to criticise with CenterICQ; the interface is fussy on very small screens, but considering the functionality beyond IRC this is not surprising. Even if you just use it for IRC, the ability to monitor activity on multiple channels is very useful and anybody involved in multiple IRC channels should certainly check it out

”

I've excluded the pictures and summary table. Pcap ping 00:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double Texas Hold'em

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Double Texas Hold'em

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Only references that have been uncovered to date are press releases or blog entries. Contested prod RadioFan (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a recently invented commercial game that has not received coverage beyond press releases or very brief repetitions of the rules posted on the inventor site. Previous "references" were a worthless. We don't make articles just because someone invents a game one day. Additionally article created by a single purpose account that almost certainly has a conflict of interest. Maybe someday it will qualify for an article, but as of now does not. 2005 (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons explained by the nominator - we need third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete per nom. Yet to make a splash in the poker world. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally we don't have an article that just gives the rules of a game, although it does sound like fun.Northwestgnome (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually we do... ie Rules of chess (Category:Game rules). The difference being that no one in their right mind would dispute the notability of chess. Not to mention there are so many sources on the subject it would make your head spin. ;) JBsupreme (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KSquirrel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's an article in Polish PC World magazine on it here (I've linked to the google translation). Also this Vietnamese page: [72], translation: [73]. Download page at PC World Canada: [74]. Download and description at PC Welt: [75], translation: [76]. TecChannel.de: [77] --JN 466 18:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I'm not sure about the current coverage, or if it really meets the definition of "non-trivial" since they are effectively curt download pages. My feelings on the matter are... ambivalent I guess on this one. JBsupreme (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — æk ^Talk 02:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jetki

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot locate significant coverage for this band. JBsupreme (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Lilley

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nowhere near notable enough per WP:BIO for sportspeople: an entirely amateur tennis player (of the present day) and lowly ranked at that; purpose of page seems very much to promote, although somewhat subtlely, the company he works for. Mayumashu (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, would not seem to meet WP:ATHLETE. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Per WP:ATHLETE. Warrah (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Space

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No apparent notability. A short page on IMDB, but not much detail. No box office figures available, no sourcing available aside from sales and Bittorrent sites. No independent reviews that I can find. —Kww(talk) 23:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources to establish notability. Alison22 (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Alison22 has been indef blocked as sockpuppet. Pcap ping 02:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another note: I have deleted most of the article as it was a copyright violation of http://www.conspiracyculture.com/dvds_ws_SpiritSpace.html and other sources. The leftorium 17:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability, no references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DasallmächtigeJ (talk • contribs) 02:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (A7) No notability and no claim to notability either (at least not by article as it stands now). --A1octopus (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Youngblood

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a contested prod where the reasons given were Non-notable musician. See this Google. The prod was supported by the comment I can't find a reference that he has "5 National Number 1 hits and 9 top 10 singles." Furthermore, there is probably a COI here, as User:Duotonestudios created the article.

Based on this, we clearly need to discuss the article even though the prod can be overturned by request. Since I am simply the restoring admin and have done no due diligence I an offering no comment on the merits of this article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:HOAX. Not listed in the full cast and crew of Tyler Perry's Why Did I Get Married?, and although a Daryl Youngblood seems to have a "Myspace band," this whole article is hogwash. Glenfarclas (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have never heard of this guy, and if he had so many hits, I wonder why I didn't. And this clearly seems to violate WP:COI. Let's just delete this article and let the well-known Mister Youngblood promote himself elsewhere. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BOLLOCKS. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Non-notable at best, probable hoax. Edward321 (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Hoax. No way anyone could have that many top 10 hits (or even 1 hit) without any news sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Kupper

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete this unreferenced BLP article please. This article has been tagged as BLP unreferenced since May 2009 and someone keeps re-introducing the same unsourced material over and over again. While I'm trying to assume good faith, I do have reason to suspect a WP:COI going on here. Google News did reveal a whopping 3 hits for this person [78] but nothing of substance at all. Not even close. JBsupreme (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You're searching the wrong database; a Billboard magazine search returns 109 hits dating back to 1993. Kupper is referred to variously as a "young Turk" and a "studio heavy". I am sure there is something enough in there to source a stub-class encyclopedia entry. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have just added some sources. Please review. Echillwp (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as all the Billboard coverage, he has a section devoted to him in the Rough Guides book House:The Rough Guide [79]. The list of artists that he has recorded with, produced, or remixed is also impressive. I would suggest that this version of the article is restored, and an effort made to source what appears to be a completely true but unsourced version, rather than judging the article based on its current contents.--Michig (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Light participation makes it difficult to discern any consensus at all. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory feedback network

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic "regulatory feedback network" seems to be a neologism (or repurposed phrase) due to Achler (the phrase is also used generically in many sources, not in the sense meant in the topic of this article), who also created the article based on his recent articles. There are no secondary sources that use this term in his sense, as far as I can find, so no evidence that the concept is notable. Probably the concept deserves a paragraph in neural networks or some such place, not an article. See the talk page; the cited "secondary" sources do not seem to mention "regulatory feedback network" or anything similar. Dicklyon (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment. The debate wasn't sorted so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. If it is used in many senses, explain them all. If it is not used at all in his sense, omit it and include the others. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this might be one of those situations where canvassing is appropriate, as 99% of the people looking at this have absolutely no idea what the hell it means. This needs experts in the field to judge its notability. I recommend we ask contributors to similar articles what they think.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 15:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. May be restored (but would need a throrough rewrite) if she becomes notable e.g. as an MP. Sandstein 07:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Alexander

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:POLITICIAN, unreferenced, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no reference. Rirunmot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep, she's the deputy mayor, and there does appear to be quite a bit of coverage referencing her. It should be possible to come up with a somewhat decent article from that, I think. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Borderline Keep. I'm not so convinced by the coverage myself, but she has been selected in a Labour safe seat which is close to a de facto election as an MP. Combined with being deputy mayor of the borough, I'd say this scrapes it - just. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:POLITICIAN doesn't consider all mayors to be notable, let alone deputy mayors. Just being selected for a safe seat doesn't qualify there either, so perhaps this could be userfied until the subject is elected to a notable post. MuffledThud (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although the subject is mentioned in several available news articles, she is only brought up in passing and not as a main focus. Quantumobserver (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plainly a vanity page: "She believes in equality, fairness wants everyone to have equal chances". I could only find a single local newspaper article actually about her. Wikipedia should not fill up with local councillors and PPCs. As for it being a safe seat, who knows with Labour's polling, and it was a Tory seat in 1987. Fences&Windows 00:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unreferenced vanity page that fails WP:POLITICIAN. If she gets elected at the next General Election, she qualifies. If the Mayor keels over and she gets promoted, she probably qualifies - but not yet. --Saalstin (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- at leat until after the 2010 General Election. She is Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the Labour Party for a safe labour seat. This means that after the election, she is likely to becomne notable. If we delete this article now, it will have to be re-created after the election. We can delete it after the election if she loses. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - doesn't appear to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN; wouldn't oppose recreation when/if she meets it in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cocytus [»talk«] 22:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Snappy (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this person does not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN right now. JBsupreme (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Intelligent Technologies and Applied Statistics

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/International Journal of Intelligent Technologies and Applied Statistics (2nd nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's been over a year and a half since the last AfD of this non-notable journal, which ended with no consensus. Created by the now indef-blocked User:AiritiPress, the article is, to put it bluntly, spam. No sources for notability. The spammer inserted this journal into List of academic journals and List of scientific journals, and I am sure that other spammers have done so. ‎Abductive (reasoning) 01:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals). --Crusio (talk) 10:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to be indexed/reviewed by any indices such as WebOfScience, JCR, MathSciNet, Scopus, etc. I looked around in Worldcat and could not find any libraries subscribing to this journal there. Doing GoogleScholar searching also did not produce any evidence of citability (let alone high citability) of papers published in this journal. So seems to fail WP:Notability (academic journals) on all counts. Nsk92 (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the publisher Airiti Press. I am very reluctant to delete an article on a Chinese (or Japanese) journal (or publisher) on the basis of finding no or almost no hits in Western indexes. The Chinese and Japanese have their own indexes for their own publications, and I doubt they index much from the English speaking world. The journal is in Ulrichs, and published by National Chengchi University, a major university. So I'd say it's appropriate to keep the basic information. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Fastily. Non-admin close. Jujutacular ^T · C 05:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ic mobile music institute

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant advertising, unreferenced, non-notable per WP:GROUP, clear WP:COI by creator, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, external links provided are all broken. Speedy delete tag removed by anonymous editor from IP address in Johannesburg. MuffledThud (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Definition of Real

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The prod was contested. I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Chill, this is a significant hip-hop artist, several mainstream hits have included samples from his work. If you search for A.D.O.R. you will find many videos etc. I remember being shocked that there wasn't an article on A.D.O.R. a while ago. I think with a bit of help I can have a tidy little article.

I found videos, but videos that people upload do not show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whats 'notability' then Joe? You can see he exists, you can see he's an influential. The amount of shit thats on wikipedia, obscure bands etc, shameless self promotion, and your telling me this guy doesn't deserve an article? I can find a dozen articles with less than two paragraphs in them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisomie_21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldbeat). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatcud (talk • contribs)

Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Joe Chill (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fatcud, you may want to read the WP:BAND guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily notable, [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] but needs to be renamed to A.D.O.R. as that is the name he is commonly known by. 86.40.58.26 (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SilkTork *^YES! 16:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren mckinney

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The prod was contested. She fails WP:ENT because she has only one role. Joe Chill (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably could have been speedied. Fails WP:ENT and probably violates WP:COI. Article creator's only other edit is a removal of Joe Chill's deletion notice, which to me indicates an obvious bad faith actor. Şłџğģő 00:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It couldn't have been speedied because having a major role in a film is a claim to notability. Joe Chill (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess, but given the film's notability (that is, none), it still ought to go. Şłџğģő 01:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The film is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Per my link, no it's not, but whatever. Şłџğģő 09:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No news coverage or roles since that I could find. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single significant role, no significant coverage. Jujutacular ^T · C 05:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 05:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would have been a valid A7, but I'll echo everything said above here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per everyone. Just plain not notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO: WP:ENT Mkdw ^talk 23:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: few reliable sources covering her; most are gossip sites. —EncMstr (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to add. Perhaps not speediable, but a clear delete case. tedder (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A1. No context. and A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content) if possible. Otherwise, delete as NN, lacking RS, V, etc. Relatively few reviews appear to address her performance. Of those that do, ABC Online's At the Movies, for example notes that in the "young inexperienced" cast, her performance stands out as "disappointing."[87] Ouch. Creator would have done better to spare her from this AfD by not contesting the prod. Шизомби (SZ) (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article isn't a slam dunk speedy, as there are a lot of sources. The challenge is finding reliable sources. —EncMstr (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite so many sources as that [88]. But indeed, how many are RS, i.e. more than trivial is an open question, though the apparent answer is none. Шизомби (SZ) (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice toward recreation if someone wishes to actually write more than one sentence. The actress seems to have only one major role in the film Paranoid Park (film), for which she gets mention in lots of places... but nothing in depth. The single role fails WP:ENT and the apparent lack of significant coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Perhaps notable one day, but not currently. Cocytus [»talk«] 22:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[1] ttp://www.nfluk.com/news/NFLBUAFL_121108.html

[2] ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnGhrMDxcKk

[3] ttp://blogs.mirror.co.uk/fourth-down/buafl/

[4] ttp://www.buafl.net/history.asp

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]